Now that almost all Christians have abandoned the Biblical frame of sexual morality nearly everyone has unknowingly filled the void with what Rollo calls the feminine imperative. The new rules of sexual morality are simple. If sex is on the woman’s terms, it is moral. If sex is on the man’s terms, it is immoral. You can see this with the moral elevation of serial monogamy and the moral stress placed on sex in the context of romantic love. This isn’t something you will see discussed outside of the manosphere however because all of this is accepted without conscious thought.

The other day I came across a youtube video of a 2008 episode of the Dr. Phil show about a pickup artist named Paul Janka. The framing of the show is fascinating, with conflicting messages suggesting that Paul and his method are both a failure as well as too successful. Even more interesting is the moral framing of the question. Dr. Phil seems certain that Paul is doing something immoral, but he doesn’t ever come out and say what that might be. The closest he comes is when he questions if Paul likes women (3:55 in the first youtube below):

Dr. Phil: How many women [have you had sex with]?

Paul: 132

Dr. Phil: Do you like women?

Paul assures him that he does. Dr. Phil then challenges Paul to explain a quote of his (leaving the “banged” part out):

She may look fit, sexy and sophisticated, but after you’ve banged her and she’s naked, with mascara running down her face and she’s trying to stuff her thighs into a pair of too small jeans at 2 a.m., you’ll realize she’s just another person trying to get by.

The tone in Dr. Phil’s voice and the look of disgust on the audience members’ faces say it all:

How dare you think of those classy ladies that way! Those are the future wives and mothers of America!

Later in the segment (8:20 in the first youtube below) they introduce one of the women Paul has gamed. Dr. Phil calls her Heather, and mentions that she blogs for Gawker. According to this Gawker post her full name is Heather Fink (confirmed on her blog). Heather explains that at first Paul was charming, but then he told her that he keeps a spreadsheet of all of his conquests.

Heather: After he said that I said “Ok, I’m definitely not touching his [censored]”.

She made out with him later that night, and some time later called him up for a drunken hookup at 2:00 AM. But according to her Paul was masturbating when he opened the door (Paul denies this), and this ruined the mood.

Heather: I was completely turned off, and thought he was crazy. And I was thinking in my head “get through the night, sober up, go home”.

Paul: I think maybe she just got undressed and came into bed. What I do remember vividly is touching her.

Heather: I slept in back to back, like my back turned to him the whole time completely shut off and like stiff and like “don’t touch me”.

Later she says:

You didn’t need a system Paul. I didn’t sleep with you because you screwed it up for yourself.

What is so noteworthy about all of this is the moral tone. The title of the segment is Male Egos Out of Control. Heather has no shame when she describes calling Paul up for a booty call. She is presented as a hero, fending off the evil pickup artist and showing him his place. There is no shock that this woman is describing her plans for casual sex, only strong disapproval that Paul was pursuing the same thing on his own terms. Heather even goes so far as to chastise Paul for squandering his chastity:

If you are that good looking, and you went to Harvard, and you waste it by volunteering yourself as a public [censored], that’s sad!

Check out the videos to see what I mean (LSFW):

Start first at 3:55 in the video above, then skip to 8:20. Start the video below from the beginning.

“But the worst thing is to marry the wrong person and I haven’t met the right one, and I don’t want it to be just anyone. Also I don’t trust most men although I am attracted to men. I suspect most men are up to something shady and trying to take my something I don’t want them to.

Man, a lot of my friends have some really hot husbands too. That would be cool. Because looks are the most important quality in a person. Just ask Scott Peterson. Or Vanessa Williams. They are both good looking.”

She is attracted to men but doesn’t trust them. Most men are “shady”. Looks are the most important quality in a person.

I can’t tell if there’s some snark there. But even if that last part is snark, anyone wanna wife this up, esp. after this?

It’s one thing to sleep with a player. It’s quite another to go on national TV to talk about it and then try to half-deny, half-weasel out. Ladies, go ahead and sleep with players. Just do us a favor and don’t go into national media outlets to try to explain, justify and cast aspersions. I’d much rather read about your exploits from men like Roissy, Roosh, and Mentu.

Clips like this is why we have so many blue pill men. They fill their heads with BS like this. They see authoritative men with lots of letters after their names quote studies and armchair-psychoanalyze men like Janka. They intersperse this with clips of women turning up their noses in haughty judgment and false-grimacing, all in an effort to conceal their tingles and erase their thoughts of wanting to have sex with Janka.

And blue pillers see this and think that a REAL man doesn’t sleep with lots of women or keep records about them. They think that a REAL man wifes up that slut. A REAL man doesn’t look out for his interests.

And most damaging, blue pillers get the message that women don’t like men like Janka. They don’t like smooth, good looking men. Only sluts and bad girls and low self esteem girls and divorcees and bottom feeders sleep with such men.

No, say these attractive women in the audience.

No, I’d NEVER sleep with a man on the first date. No, I’d NEVER do anything like that.

No, I’ve never even THOUGHT about such a good looking man sleeping with me.

No way would I sleep with that smug jerk, they say with cameras carefully trained on them for reaction shots.

While they sit there, tingling so hard they can’t stand it. You can almost see the steam coming out of their ears from the friction on the hamsterwheel spindles.

Same old tired Dr Phil claptrap. Of course if he didn’t say and believe what he does, he’d get booted off the air. It’s a shame that society has degenerated to the point where the only opinion you can ever be seen expressing is the one belonging to the status quo.

So she admits she was drunk, called him up, went to his place at 2 a.m., took off her clothes and go into bed with him, but “rejected” him because she slept “stiff as a board” with her back to him…. (how does a woman who is passed out drunk stay stiff as a board?). I suppose had “anything” occurred then she would have gone to the police and filed rape charges… Because, after all, showing up at his house at 2 a.m., taking off her clothes and crawling into his bed in on way implied consent… After all, he should just read her “stiff as a board” body language and realize she wants nothing to do with him. Yeah, sure, wife that up… the frigid slut, no doubt a dream wife.

I would like it if life works that out for me some time soon. I think it will work eventually for sure, I just have faith in that. I’m very curious when, where and who in the meantime. In the meantime, my heart and mind are being heartily fed by creative ambitions. I highly recommend creativity and productivity as the cure to all other needs (for a sustainable period of time, though not indefinitely).

In reading Miss Fink’s blog, I feel certain that her “creativity” will not be getting her much of anything, including both a living and a husband. She would have far better luck at the Singles Ministry at my church. Our pastor had to remind the congregation from the pulpit last year that if you are participating in Single’s Ministry, you’re not supposed to be having sex with each other. He also blamed the men for it. Not knowing any better at the time, I thought, “Those bad men.”

I don’t even think I can watch this. “When the violent harpy in the audience says they should be “neutered”” Are you kidding me? It astounds me that they don’t see their own internal hypocrisy, their sadistic crowd behaviour.

It is these people – these god fearing, democracy supporting, hard working hypocrites – who’ll call us ‘radical right-wing racist militants’ today, will be the first ones to support the new Hitler when the economy tanks.

Lol, the hypocrisy. She has a nickname for Paul with her friends (like all women do to keep the multiple guys they are seeing straight in their minds) and that is considered completely acceptable to Dr. Phil and the audience, meanwhile Paul keeping a spreadsheet is considered completely awful by Dr. Phil and his audience of shrikes.

“It’s either PUA or MGTOW in regards to modern women. Both types are the same yet on opposite sides of the spectrum. There is no middle ground if men wish to make it out in one piece.”

Jim
I always believed they are the same man at different stages in their life. What they have in common and is key is neither invest in women. The two together are the MRM greatest assets to defeat femminism. Those two types of men receive the greatest shaming also to man-up. The PUA is the cock carousel 16 -32 year old women with creditials ride. Baby rabies hit and the MGTOW is standing there by the PUA for the old wringled puss. Voluntary childless spinsterhood as it should be. my thing is a male birth control pill it makes bull pill beta supplicaters PUA. They just need to be sold on the be responsible with your sperm line and birth control should be a shared responsibility (why should she risk her health?) Then it becomes involuntary childless spinsterhood. That is when women’s magazines and television programming become my entertainment staple. It is the laws of misandry that is the problem. All of this pick the right girl,hook up smart, church and state, true love etc. is all just bullshit. Women are too stupid and selfish to put two and two together. so we will have a a master’s degreed woman making 87k a year single nothing saved and childless and 43 with no hope of ever living as a grandma with a house full of grand kids on some chilly thanksgiving day. check this out http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2178875/Holly-Madison-adopt-baby-avoid-missing-Las-Vegas-Peep-Show.html
right now it is a celebrity. Multiply that by 30 million women over 15 years . Throw in a male pill and there won’t be a baby to adopt. Man i could sell time at a knock up house (like a crack house but instead of drugs you get semen in the vagina) that sells for animous semen injections for a thousnd dollars an hour.
Get scared straight bitch.

It’s no surprise. It’s the usual I’m not responsible for my actions or I want rights/privileges but not the responsibilities that go along with them schtick. My kids outgrew the “he made me do it” excuse a long time ago. It seems many women are still stuck in that phase.

“Women are too stupid and selfish to put two and two together. so we will have a a master’s degreed woman making 87k a year single nothing saved and childless and 43 with no hope of ever living as a grandma with a house full of grand kids on some chilly thanksgiving day.”

see MNEZ MENZ created beuatiful mythologiez and religion
that told the stories
of what would happen to virtuous womenz
and what would happenz
to sluytty sluttss taking it in da butt
and serving gina and butt tinglez
over god and man over zeus and christ
lzozozozolzzo

and so you get what we have here
which is a failure to communicatez
well, most women you just can’t reach
and so tey getz it, the way they wantz it
now i don’t like it any more than you do
but i owe nothing to all da assbanged embittered fmeienistzzttss deocnstctructorz and debauchers
but my ympatahiesz sincere sympatahaiesz
for you r sore
butthoul butthole
and
disappeared soul

I’m of two minds about Mr. Janka’s statement because I think it can be interpreted in a couple of different ways.

On the one hand, he could simply be saying that you shouldn’t be intimidated to approach attractive members of the opposite sex, because after all, we all put our pants on one leg at a time, i.e. we’re all just people. And if that’s his point, I agree with him.

But . . . come on now. The subtext of his statement is obvious. I think he is expressing his contempt for the women who sleep with him, his belief that what they are doing shameful. And if so, that’s pretty despicable — because he is ACTIVELY trying to get these women to engage in an activity that he views as shameful on their part. He is luring and seducing and PUA-ing them into doing something that he thinks makes them unworthy of respect. He is basically saying, “Hey, sleep with me and then after you do, I’m going to point and laugh.” That makes him a very small person. And he should be shamed for that.

Now, Ms. Fink may indeed be doing the same thing. And if so, she should be called on it. On its face, her statemetn does seem to take him to task for his large partner count, even as she herself apparently has a large partner count. I don’t agree with double standards. On the other hand, it may be that she distinguishes her behavior from Mr. Janka’s by the respect with which she treats her partners; if so, however, she needs to state this more clearly.

almost all Christians have abandoned the Biblical frame of sexual morality…The new rules of sexual morality are simple. If sex is on the woman’s terms, it is moral. If sex is on the man’s terms, it is immoral. You can see this with the moral elevation of serial monogamy and the moral stress placed on sex in the context of romantic love

To put it another way, borrowing from the language of electronics: Fallen women prefer to sexually sin in series; fallen men prefer to sexually sin in parallel. Both are equally wrong in the eyes of God, but because fornication in series bears an accidental, superficial, earthly resemblance to marriage, it is mistakenly seen as somehow less sinful than fornication in parallel.

… these god fearing, democracy supporting, hard working hypocrites – who’ll call us ‘radical right-wing racist militants’ today, will be the first ones to support the new Hitler when the economy tanks.

I wouldn’t call them god-fearing. Far, far from it.

But the economy has already tanked. And a new Hitler has already arisen, and they voted for him, and will vote for him again.

“But . . . come on now. The subtext of his statement is obvious. I think he is expressing his contempt for the women who sleep with him, his belief that what they are doing shameful. And if so, that’s pretty despicable — because he is ACTIVELY trying to get these women to engage in an activity that he views as shameful on their part. He is luring and seducing and PUA-ing them into doing something that he thinks makes them unworthy of respect. He is basically saying, “Hey, sleep with me and then after you do, I’m going to point and laugh.” That makes him a very small person. And he should be shamed for that.”

I do not read so deeply into his actions, though if I did, I would have to consider him a necessary evil. Women are the gatekeepers to sex and men to commitment. If women are not going to be better gatekeepers at least swine like him expose which women should not be given commitment by those of us who honour such things.

“On the other hand, it may be that she distinguishes her behavior from Mr. Janka’s by the respect with which she treats her partners; if so, however, she needs to state this more clearly.”

Leading by example or holding yourself accountable to maintain a certain standard in your behavior towards others in hard work. It’s much easier hinting at superiority by criticizing someone else for behaviours that you have in no way promised to give up yourself.

I think Janka’s subtext is a little different. Most of the women he’s getting are probably pretty and self-absorbed. I’d view it as far more a point about the irony of living, tinged with a bit of schadenfreude.

vR – “[i]To put it another way, borrowing from the language of electronics: Fallen women prefer to sexually sin in series; fallen men prefer to sexually sin in parallel. Both are equally wrong in the eyes of God, but because fornication in series bears an accidental, superficial, earthly resemblance to marriage, it is mistakenly seen as somehow less sinful than fornication in parallel.[/i]”

I think you are completely correct here, though serial fornication could almost be seen as more damaging to women’s interests because it directly removes opportunity for marriage for them. 10 wieners are ten wieners in the scope of morality but 10 wieners in one year (21) gives them nine more years before hitting the arbitrary wall date to clean up their act and utilize their youth as a selling point in securing a mate. 10 wieners in 10 years at a rate of 1 wiener per year, once again starting at 21 puts them over the wall date with no secured commitment. The SMP being what it is means that theoretically the serial fornicator will have less chances of getting married than the parallel fornicator will. She will still have the same challenges that any woman over 30 will face but will have the added stigma of a high partner count that she could have avoided by waiting for a real commitment – i.e. I would put more money on a post-wall woman with a 0-3 wiener count finding decent commitment than I would a 25-29 year old with a high wiener count.

“Women are the gatekeepers to sex and men to commitment. If women are not going to be better gatekeepers at least swine like him expose which women should not be given commitment by those of us who honour such things.”

That is true in the sense that women also avoid a man who has given away commitment foolishly, if that has made him poor and smarter, but if such a man is still rich and foolish women are still interested.

To put it another way, borrowing from the language of electronics: Fallen women prefer to sexually sin in series; fallen men prefer to sexually sin in parallel. Both are equally wrong in the eyes of God, but because fornication in series bears an accidental, superficial, earthly resemblance to marriage, it is mistakenly seen as somehow less sinful than fornication in parallel.

This is certainly true, but there is more to it. Christian sexual morality is more encompassing than simply saying “Put a ring on it”. The sexual safe harbor of marriage comes at a price. Not only is it for life, but each sex has specific obligations. Men take on the burden of providing for and protecting the family, and assuming the responsibility of leadership. Women are expected to submit to their husbands, something which especially rubs feminists the wrong way. Neither is to deny sex to the other, another thing which really sticks in feminists’ craw. Go to church on Sunday and randomly pick a member in good standing. They will no doubt be all about Christian sexual morality, except quite likely the part about no frivolous divorce (only by women though), not denying sex (again only by women), and that whole wife submits to the husband thing. The sexual anarchy we see with men like Paul and women like Heather traces its roots back to the 99% of Christians who found what the Bible says about sexual morality to be too much to stomach, even though they are sure they are all about sexual morality. They will in fact happily lecture anyone they see about sexual morality and the Bible.

Any way you look at it, it is about the female imperative. Look at the parts of Biblical marriage which are discarded, and they all fit the pattern. The same goes for the wider culture’s view of Biblical marriage. If it suits women’s needs, it is moral, if it suits men’s needs, it is not.

simply put,
christianity without the christian sexual morality spelled out by the bible
is not christianity

but something else
entirely
which transfers wealth from good, exalted menz
to asscocked, embittered womenz
and the bankers
behind them
both literally & figuratively
lzozlzozoz

whihc is why the bankers have invested so much money
in deosuling and assccoing womenz
and converting them from future wives mothers and grandmothers
into soulles vehicles of welath trransfer
and isntrumntz of debt
and debauchery zlzozl
lzozozlzo

“But . . . come on now. The subtext of his statement is obvious. I think he is expressing his contempt for the women who sleep with him, his belief that what they are doing shameful. And if so, that’s pretty despicable — because he is ACTIVELY trying to get these women to engage in an activity that he views as shameful on their part. He is luring and seducing and PUA-ing them into doing something that he thinks makes them unworthy of respect. He is basically saying, “Hey, sleep with me and then after you do, I’m going to point and laugh.” That makes him a very small person. And he should be shamed for that.”
Doomed harlet
That is doing the lords work. You should be thanking that man man for doing doing what you yourself should be doing when a woman behaves as she does. Thank you pick up artist. The highschool graduating class has some new carousel riders for you. And once again thank you for your service stud muffin.

This is idea is dead and gone in modern Christianity. Try suggesting otherwise on a website like Christianity Today or Christian Forums and watch the fur fly (ask me how I know).

They will in fact happily lecture anyone they see about sexual morality and the Bible.

They might if they are over 35. The under-35 crowd is moving away from even saying that there is anything wrong with premarital sex. See Relevant Magazine online (one of my favorite new places to dig for blog material) for examples.

christianity without the christian sexual morality
is like the chocolate chip cookie
without the chocalate chips
sans the cookie dough
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is like an airplane
without wings
and no pilot
in the cockpit lzozozooz
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is a front
for th bernanke divroce cartel
where minsterz wed men
to desouled buttcocked womenz
loyal first and foremost to da fed
and last to god and beauty and soul
lzozlozzozolozozo
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is where men take all the risksz
and must uphold all the traiditonal work
of the hudsbdand and providerz
but they get none of the rewardz
as their wife was buttcocked in coclllege
and trianed to hate menz
and trianed to hate her soul
trianed to fart on fate
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is just like missionary position
but in the butthole instead of da gina
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is like a car
without wheelzzz
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is like a fish with a bicycle
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is like the fiat dollar
fundamentally worthlezzss
but for da bernake police state
backing it up
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is like the federal reserve
which is neither federal
nor does it have any reserves
christianity without the christian sexual morality
is like the truth
without
the Truth.

Now, Ms. Fink may indeed be doing the same thing. And if so, she should be called on it. On its face, her statemetn does seem to take him to task for his large partner count, even as she herself apparently has a large partner count. I don’t agree with double standards. On the other hand, it may be that she distinguishes her behavior from Mr. Janka’s by the respect with which she treats her partners; if so, however, she needs to state this more clearly.

It’s like knocking over an ant hill and watching the ants scramble to put it back together again. Trying to shove the frame back to the female imperative won’t work here though. Sure women have sex for love, and they respect their partners afterword. Except when they blog about him and make up disparaging nicknames, like the woman in the story did about the pickup artist. Note that he always treated her with respect on the show, while she treated him with derision. The real objection to his frame of not pedastalizing loose women is this threatens their future marriage prospects. These indescretions need to be framed as not something she willingly participated in. Otherwise how in the world is she supposed to have it all. Having it all includes the social validation of a wedding and a beta provider as a walking wallet.

She was duped by the bad PUA, even though her only criticism of him is his game wasn’t good enough to keep the attraction and close the deal. Once she heard he had so many partners, she ruled him out sexually. She ruled him out so much that she then went on to make out with him on the spot. Then she called him up for a booty call some weeks or months later…

Dalrock, Well, I will say I haven’t had a chance to watch the video links you posted. So you may well be right.

I do want to be very clear that I do NOT think that women are always inevitably morally correct. And I’m very much opposed to any tendency to place women in general or any particular woman on a pedestal. We are human beings, not angels, and that means we’re often jerks, just as often as men are, in fact.

But I do think that many on this forum have a knee-jerk tendency to want to place women in the gutter (which is just as bad as placing them on a pedestal), so I always like to throw out alternative possibilities. Again, as I said in my first comment, I agree with you that on its face, Ms. Fink’s comment appears to express a double standard, which I certainly can’t condone.

“Women are the gatekeepers to sex and men to commitment. If women are not going to be better gatekeepers at least swine like him expose which women should not be given commitment by those of us who honour such things.”

This is an extremely adversarial view of the relationship between the sexes. This belief assumes that the sexes are always in opposition to each other — or, at best, that they don’t want the same things from each other and therefore can only relate on a quid pro quo basis (i.e. a trade of sex in exchange for commitment). Would you really want to marry someone on that basis? Isn’t it just too depressing? It certainly would be from the female side of the equation; I think a lot of us would rather stay single than be merely tolerated by some guy for our sexual and baby-making abilities.

My own view is that the sexes want similar things. We all love sex, which is why it is grossly inhumane to impose the “sexual gatekeeper” role on one sex but not the other. And we all crave love and family. Most men do not want to live as an island cut off from intimacy and committed family life with women and children. So I favor a model of collaboration between the sexes. Sometimes the sexes collaborate on great sex. Sometimes the sexes collaborate on building families. Sometimes both at once. Imposing an artificially cold and adversarial framework over the relationship between the sexes (i.e. the gatekeeper/quid pro quo viewpoint) doesn’t help to build trust or warmth — which is why this forum is filled with so much negativity.

Doomed Harlot: This is an extremely adversarial view of the relationship between the sexes.

Welcome to the modern world.

My own view is that the sexes want similar things. We all love sex, which is why it is grossly inhumane to impose the “sexual gatekeeper” role on one sex but not the other.

A very large number of married men out there would dispute the idea that “we all love sex”.

A lot of married men assert that, somewhere around year 5 of marriage, the sex life withers away to zero or very near zero, and that NOTHING they do — flowers, dishes, jewelry, housecleaning, even counselling, chocolate, prayer, etc.. — can revive it.

so i was in a shurch the other daay
i was in church the other day
and the minister had very nice hair
and a big smile
and i noticed dat all the young ladies
were shifting around in their seat
as they had sore buttholez
so i leaned towards my friend
and i whispered,
“a lot of da womenz in my genenrtion have sore buttes fom being buttcocked so much.”
and the minisiter
he heard me oh no!
he stopped his sermon
and walkd towards me his face turning red
and he said
“ABOMINATINETION!!!! WE HAVE A SINNER IN THIS CHURCH!”
he pointed at me, and all da womenz his harmez said “yah yah yah! a sinnerz!””
“THROUGH HIM, SATAN HAS DISGRACED MY CHURCH WITHTHE WORD BUTT-COCKED!!!!”
and he pointed at me as i cowered
in fear of hs thurndering lord’s voice
and nice hair and pleasnant TV preacher’s smile
owned by da bernaneknetworkz
and the womenz all said “SINNER SINNER SINNER!”
but yet i stood and said,
“who is the sinner–those who buttcock, or those who sayeth and observeth that ye all be buttocking, which is an abomination in the yees of my fatheer?”
“ABONOMINTAION! SINNER! SUCH LANUGUAGE SHALL NOT BE TOLRERATED IN THE HAOUSE OF THE LORD!!!” the minsister smited me and all the womenz followed suit with their handbabags lzolzlo
and so they killed the messenger of our Father’s will
as they had done to Jesusth
and so many poets and prophets
before
and
since

and while the church building let stood
its soul was buttcocked
into
obliviolnonomzlzozlzoozzozlzolzzozzlozzz

van Rooinek
July 27, 2012 at 12:14 pm
(Quoting Greg’s post)
Greg’s pastor: It is my opinion that the church’s prudery [read: disdain toward biblical sexuality] has been a major force in the success of the porn industry and the depth of porn addiction as a problem in our Western society. I have theological reasons behind that opinion(endquote)

(my own words)
Indeed. This dovetails with my own deep-seated gut sense that — although the church is right to reject porn — much of the hue and cry against porn in the church seems to be driven by something other than a desire for godliness. Maybe it’s just a hatred of male sexuality. Or, perhaps the porn actresses are getting ONE thing RIGHT, that many Christian wives are NOT, and thus the existence of porn constitutes an annoying challenge to their consciences.

(That said… there are certainly some men for whom porn is a true addiction, unrelated to whether or not their own wives and the church as a whole are doing things right or wrong. But I insist that this is a minority of porn users, not the norm.)

I opined a long time ago, that Christians are against porn because it’s sinful and destructive, but Feminists are against porn because MEN LIKE IT. I now retract this statement, because more and more I get the sense that a lot of Christians share the feminist motives.

Check out Sheila’s answer…. amazingly convergent with this thread:

Sheila says
July 27, 2012 at 12:17 pmI think you’re right. There is a sense that women’s desire for close relationship through talking/affection is “purer” than men’s desire for close relationship through sex, even though God made both, and both were made that way to demonstrate a different side of God’s character. One is not right over the other, but I think within the church we tend to choose sides.

We need to dialogue with Sheila. not slam her. She’s closer to our thinking that some posters here realize. As this response proves.

Sheila always does that, then reverts to her usual crap. She sprinkles nuggets of truth amongst the hamster food but the foundation is wrong, so it’s pretty much worthless at best, destructive at worst. When she comes out and renounces her false teaching and starts talking about wives submitting to their husbands in everything, no ifs ands or buts, I’ll change my mind.

D: Until a month or two from now when she swears she’s never heard of such a thing, and you have to start all over from scratch with her.

Agreed. But not everyone gets the whole redpill at once. Some people chew it up and swallow litle pieces at a time, and try to quell the bitterness with wine from the old wineskin, if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphors.

Only in a cultural environment so saturated by feminization is a man’s sexual priority made synonymous with a woman’s sexual priority. Even when a woman adopts a male sexual strategy (promiscuity) it’s still viewed as a net positive, while still being vilified for men.

There is no greater evidence of the feminine imperative’s influence on society than duplicities like this are normalized to the point that we’re unaware of them.

Women are the gatekeepers to sex because they are the ones who choose which men they fuck. If they do not choose, it’s called RAPE. DH will keep saying this is not true because she’s a woman and the Apex Fallacy strikes again. She merely sees women competing for the top few men, therefore she determines that those men get to ‘choose’ and thus hold the power with respect to the sexual gateway. They don’t choose at all, the merely take the free sex on offer…

Agreed. But not everyone gets the whole redpill at once. Some people chew it up and swallow litle pieces at a time, and try to quell the bitterness with wine from the old wineskin, if you’ll pardon the mixed metaphors.

As CL pointed out, this is a very old story with Sheila. She writes to the female imperative in her blog posts and especially in her books. Then if cornered she will at times acknowledge in the discussion that things are actually different. But what you won’t ever see is her taking a strong line in the post itself, and especially in her books. She is only red pill when it is more convenient to be so than not and when it doesn’t threaten her revenue stream. If you truly doubt me, why not you and the wife attend one of her great Christian marriage counselling sessions and report back with your findings? You can both learn all about Biblical marriage then from Sheila and her husband. If the thought of taking your wife there makes your skin crawl, then you know the answer. If not, I’ll hold open a guest post spot for you to tell my readers all about it.

DH – I do not view it as necessarily an adversarial relationship. Ideally, both parties should want both sex and commitment. Unfortunately, femifascism has been changing the game and has only been arguing for sex on a woman’s terms and commitment on her’s as well. Marriage IS give and take. Ideally they will work together but in reality both will more than likely have to make sacrifices. The desires of a man have no place in the feminist weltanschauung.

Women are the gatekeepers of sex because a man cannot unilaterally decide to have sex. He cannot coerce any woman to do it with him, even his wife he must convince. If a woman wants to have sex, in general she can do it for free. The man may not be the most valuable, but there will almost always be one willing to do it, mating strategies being what they are. In our society, commitment is one of the few things that a man has control over. The state can regulate that commitment, but as of now they cannot outright force you into it (common-law marriages and such are getting pretty close, but even there, you can choose not to live with the woman (Iron Rule of Tomassi #4)).

So no, I do not want to see an adversarial relationship between men and women. That helps neither (as much as femcnuts want to think otherwise). I want to see men and women working together for a common goal. But I don’t think I will be able to see this. The ability to give or withhold commitment is one of the few advantages a man has left. And men as a whole are not to blame for this. I have been wanting to marry for years. There are many more like me. We aren’t all sexually frustrated betas who want an easy access snatch. Some of us see how things have worked out for our parents and grandparents and want that for ourselves. Some of us are Christian and believe that this is how things should be. Every time some aging bitch who’s squandered her life moans “where have all the good men gone”, I tell them, they are right where you left them. And God knows, they will always be in the last place you look! There are exceptions to every rule but this retarded desouled bernankified chimp in the video is not one of them and she will receive none of my sympathy. When men who once were nice guys and have since become PUA’s you can usually find a gatekeeper (or more likely a string of them) who opened the door for the thief and blocked the shepherd.

why not you and the wife attend one of her great Christian marriage counselling sessions and report back with your findings? You can both learn all about Biblical marriage then from Sheila and her husband.

Good point. I’d rather learn Biblical marriage from the Bible. Much of what Sheila says is good… but not all of it. Just enough that…

If the thought of taking your wife there makes your skin crawl, then you know the answer.

One more thought on Sheila’s 50 shades of grey post. She is right in spotting the feminine imperative in outright switching female porn for the Bible in hotels. What she doesn’t understand (or admit) is that she has already done worse in her own books. The Bible tells wives they need to submit to their husbands. Sheila teaches women that this means wives need to give their husbands lists of chores to do around the house. Likewise the Bible says wives and husbands must not to deny their spouse sex or they will create temptation for sexual sin. Sheila changes this to wives must deny sex if their husband is tempted by sexual sin, and otherwise have sex when they are in the mood.

So while it is despicable that the Bible is being replaced overtly by non believers for the female imperative, it is even worse that Sheila has covertly changed the Bible to fit the female imperative. Good luck getting her to admit what she has done in her own books. Please however do let me know if you are able to get her to admit this.

Sheila has covertly changed the Bible to fit the female imperative. Good luck getting her to admit what she has done in her own books. Please however do let me know if you are able to get her to admit this.

I’m not sure she’s fully conscious of the contradiction. But dialogue is a better tactic than isolation, to bring her around.

[D: I don’t see an opening there, but I pray that you are able to prove me wrong by bringing her around.]

The real question is, does that show get Dr. Phil laid? Does status and power overcome white-knighting and beta-game? That’ a question for greater minds than mine…

Men who don’t get laid, generally regard women as pure evil. Since Dr Phil doesn’t, we can safely assume that, indeed, for him, “status and power overcome white-knighting and beta-game”.

All about Dr Phil, courtesy of WikipediaMcGraw married his first wife, an ex-cheerleader and homecoming queen named Debbie Higgins McCall, in 1970, when he was 20 years old. According to her, McGraw was domineering and would not allow her to participate in the family business. She claimed that she was confined to domestic duties, which included lifting weights to improve her bustline.

During the process of annulling the marriage in 1973, McGraw began dating Robin Jo Jameson. The couple had two children, Jay, born in 1979, and Jordan, born 1986.

McGraw’s son, Jay McGraw, has partially followed in his father’s footsteps, publishing books aimed at teenagers based on McGraw’s books and working for Stage 29. Jay McGraw became engaged to Erica Dahm, one of the famous Playboy Playmate triplets. McGraw, who has been an outspoken critic of pornography, was best man at his son’s wedding, which was held at his home in Beverly Hills.

“I think he is expressing his contempt for the women who sleep with him, his belief that what they are doing shameful. And if so, that’s pretty despicable — because he is ACTIVELY trying to get these women to engage in an activity that he views as shameful on their part. ”

Well, let’s be honest here: those women are going to jump into bed with someone. Janka is simply trying to make it be him rather than another man. He isn’t turning virgins into sluts; he’s steering sluts away from other men and toward him.

Maybe he does view them as contemptible, but if so I bet he figures “if they are going to behave comtemptibly, it might as well be with me.”

TFH – Your comment regarding the ‘winter of democracy’ got me thinking of something a friend and I have been discussing for a while now regarding Benjamin Franklin’s quote about a democracy ending when people learn they can vote themselves money (or privileges). I wonder if feminism may not, after all, be THE cause of our society’s ills but rather one more symptom of greater enfranchisement without maintaining societal obligations. Rollo posted a link to a video (I think it was ‘chick says what’ or something like that) where she pointed out that when women received the vote they never received the obligations that men have had – one of the chief ones being conscription. Regardless, each time you open the vote up to a new group of people you cheapen it, and voting is seen as a right rather than an obligation (even voting itself is an obligation to the state). When people vote they do not see it as a matter of the best interests of the people but as a matter of their own interests. Thus you have crop after crop of demagogues who promise the hoi polloi shiny pretty things and these people get elected. Do you think we would have so much preferential treatment of women in the law if it weren’t for the fact that some crafty men saw the value of women as a massive voting block consisting largely of people ruled by emotion?

Women are the gatekeepers to sex because that is how our society has decided it will be. Women sit there on their barstools waiting passively as men approach and try to earn their interest. Of course, if women (who claim to believe in equality) decided to stop being passive and do their fair share of making approaches the “gatekeeper/gatecrasher” model would be obselete. It’s almost like modern women want all the advantages of “equality” but none of the dreary drawbacks.

Koevet @ 12:45 p.m., Thank you for your lucid explanation of why you believe women should be the “gatekeepers” of sex. (I had to laugh at the “femcunt” reference in the middle of your otherwise very politely worded comment.)

You say that women are the gatekeepers because we get to choose with whom to have sex. I think that’s overstating the case quite a bit — even schlubby guys have standards and women do indeed get turned down for sex all the time.

But in any case, even assuming that casual sex is bad and should be prevented, then surely both sexes have a responsibility to prevent it, not just women. Even if we are naturally choosier about whom to sleep with (and I suspect we are), it doesn’t follow that we therefore have more of an obligation than men to prevent casual sex from happening.

“Women are the gatekeepers to sex because that is how our society has decided it will be. Women sit there on their barstools waiting passively as men approach and try to earn their interest. Of course, if women (who claim to believe in equality) decided to stop being passive and do their fair share of making approaches the “gatekeeper/gatecrasher” model would be obselete. It’s almost like modern women want all the advantages of “equality” but none of the dreary drawbacks.”

I agree that it would be good for women and for men to be less passive in the dating arena. But people here are saying that women SHOULD be the gatekeepers, not just that they are. I think one question is why there needs to be a gatekeeper, and why men can’t take equal responsibilitiy in this area.

In terms of women not taking the initiative, I do think there are understandable reasons for this. I think it is beneficial to all when women take steps to overcome those reasons, but the problem is cultural. Because the idea of men doing the initiating is so old and deeply rooted and still alive-and-well, there is often no incentive for women to do the scary work of making a move and risking rejection (except for women like me who kind of forced themselves to do it out of principle).* Also, because men do so much of the initiating, it is perceived is unusual and even weird when a woman does it. The man might assume that the woman is more into him than she really is if she does the asking, or he might assume sex is definitely on the table, when perhaps she is still at the stage of just wanting to get to know him better. There is even a sense that it is kind of lame or there must be something wrong with the woman if she “has” to make the first move. It is a lot easier for a good-looking woman to take this step for that reason, but it is really hard for the average gal to take this weird, scary step.

*I will say that going through the jitters and nervousness of approaching an attractive boy in high school and saying, “Will you go to the dance with me?” or over the years of college and after, “I’d love to take you out to dinner if you’re free,” made me a better, kinder person, and more appreciative of men who tried to court me during those years. It is a really tough thing to do, and I give men a ton of credit for making this kind of nervewracking effort.

Yes Janka feels contempt for all these “I just want a nice guy” poseurs he screws. Why shouldn’t he? A girls makes 2AM booty call to a dude who announced that he keeps a spread sheet and that’s worthy of respect? Seriously???

Like Janka, most of the girls I fuck are hypergamous skanks. On a rare occasion I’ll bang a free spirit and these women send out a completely different vibe. Only a small minority of women who are out there fucking relative strangers are worthy of neutrality, because only the minority earn that neutrality. The vast majority act like lying whores and should expect to be treated like lying whores.

You say that women are the gatekeepers because we get to choose with whom to have sex. I think that’s overstating the case quite a bit — even schlubby guys have standards and women do indeed get turned down for sex all the time.

This, I would categorize as a dramatic overstatement, LOL

But in any case, even assuming that casual sex is bad and should be prevented, then surely both sexes have a responsibility to prevent it, not just women. Even if we are naturally choosier about whom to sleep with (and I suspect we are), it doesn’t follow that we therefore have more of an obligation than men to prevent casual sex from happening.

While I am not inclined to absolve men of the responsibility to do the right thing, the reality is that so long as the woman is the one who makes the ultimate decision whether or not sex will occur, the onus is on the woman to set the standard of chastity. With power comes responsibility. If she’s worth to him, he will wait.

DH – Re: Women getting turned down for sex. Is this women getting turned down for one-off sex or for a relationship? I have a hard time believing that if you took ten men and ten women and tracked them that the number of women incapable of having sex would outnumber the men. I have talked to a number of decent women who have had difficulty getting a relationship and most of them have had propositions for sex, or in other cases could even get the relationship if they accepted that it would be crappy. I have also known plenty of men who cannot get laid to save their life and are willing to sacrifice themselves by getting in a poor relationship just because they believe it is better than being alone. (I realize that the converse is true, but in my experience from talking to both men and women the men often have a much harder time of finding someone than the women do.)

As for who is to blame for promiscuity I still think it starts with the women. Even you admit that they are more choosey. Why not utilize that and just stop screwing these PUAs, if they are really as base and vile as women say they are? You say their actions are despicable. Fine. Then don’t reward their actions! If a loyal, loving man is really what women are after they should be rewarding these men – and yes, they do exist, and in greater numbers than many women seem to accept. I think it is time that both sides of the equation start taking responsibility for their actions. If a woman remains chaste and then marries a decent man and is loyal to him in their marriage and he runs off on her – he is a swine and should be called out on it. And if you look at society you will see that he is. I also think that a woman who rides the carousel for fifteen years and then starts looking for a husband has no one to blame but herself. It is a man’s prerogative to not want to commit to her, just as it was her prerogative not to commit herself to one man in all the preceding years.

Unattractive guys may reject women, but it’s exceedingly rare. As long as a woman is a 3 or above, she can have sex anytime, anyplace, with a guy of her choosing. The female uggo has way more sexual opportunities than her male counterpart.*

she writes to the female imperative in her blog posts and especially in her books. Then if cornered she will at times acknowledge in the discussion that things are actually different. But what you won’t ever see is her taking a strong line in the post itself, and especially in her books. She is only red pill when it is more convenient to be so than not and when it doesn’t threaten her revenue stream.

Hmmm, this sounds awfully familiar, almost like we’ve applied it to some other false-flag red-pill blogger before,..hmmm…

Controlling access to sex (women’s primary agency) is the most important aspect of a feminine-primary reality. This reality necessitates that Men’s sexual interests are by default, deviant, hurtful and shameful, while women’s sexual expressions are normative, correct and above reproach. Men are perverts when they masturbate, yet women are so sexy when they masturbate that there’s a niche for it in pornography. The problem the feminine faces in maintaining this control to sexual access is that the same competition that drives women to restrain it is the same competition that forces them to ‘up the ante’ and allow it in order to beat their competition.

Evil alpha is kind of helping to prove my point. It’s not having lots of casual sex that is the problem or that is “sad.” What’s “sad” is spending free time having sex with women whom you loathe and despise because they had sex with you.

I opined a long time ago, that Christians are against porn because it’s sinful and destructive, but Feminists are against porn because MEN LIKE IT. I now retract this statement, because more and more I get the sense that a lot of Christians share the feminist motives.

We need to dialogue with Sheila. not slam her. She’s closer to our thinking that some posters here realize. As this response proves.

She really isn’t. I’ve already been posting on the topic of the abject hypocrisy evident in her treatment of female-oriented porn versus male-oriented porn, but from what I read on the rest of her site so far, the feminist imperative is spread all over the site. I see nothing but femDOM oriented thinking, and her advice on establishing Marriage 2.0. I really find little that I’m agreeable with that she writes about. Then on anything that I have agreed about (usually anything that can be seen in a man-positive light), she’s extremely inconsistent in her message to the point that she could be accused of waffling in what she says. The fem-porn issue is a great case study if you follow the history of her posts on the topic, as the only real consistent message that comes out of it is “woman porn is good and man porn is bad”. Of course there’s disagreement, but to date I’ve only witnessed something unequivocal and firm on the topic of 50SoG and only in the last three days posts.

CL:

When she comes out and renounces her false teaching and starts talking about wives submitting to their husbands in everything, no ifs ands or buts, I’ll change my mind.

Dalrock:

So while it is despicable that the Bible is being replaced overtly by non believers for the female imperative, it is even worse that Sheila has covertly changed the Bible to fit the female imperative.

This is pretty much how it is. I see very little that’s either Christian or formative on that site when it comes to the topic of marriage. There’s really no chance at dialogue with her fixing anything until she repents of her femDOM teachings, and starts coming at marriage from a real Christian Biblical perspective. The only option until that happens is to make clear where and how she is wrong.

If I spent all my time searching for free spirits and unicorns, I’d get laid once a year. Oh and by the way, fucking people you loathe is not a problem for men. I still can bust an awesome nut in to a hot bitch that I can’t stand. I even have had a few enemies with benefits.

Damn girls and their projections. You know what makes a vagina dry, not what makes a dick limp.

To me, the female equivalent of a PUA would be a beautiful woman who collects gifts from men under false pretenses- by giving them hope that one day they may sleep with her (or even be in a relationship with her) when in actually she has no interest in them beyond fancy dinners and jewelry. Male PUAs do the same thing, except they falsify interest beyond sex to get sex. Both usually move on and leave their “prey” heartbroken. I know both of these strategies are way outside you Christian view of morality, Dalrock, but I have a feeling others in the manosphere would be all up in arms about the former being a “bad woman” while the latter gets a pass. And from what I’ve observed, this male version of this behavior is much more common- perhaps because the male sex drive is especially strong, although that shouldn’t matter when determining whether it’s right or wrong.

“This is pretty much how it is. I see very little that’s either Christian or formative on that site when it comes to the topic of marriage. There’s really no chance at dialogue with her fixing anything until she repents of her femDOM teachings, and starts coming at marriage from a real Christian Biblical perspective. The only option until that happens is to make clear where and how she is wrong.”

I agree with you that she is not following Biblical teachings on marriage and that she needs to change her position, though I believe that van Rooinek’s dialogue holds the potential to bring this about. I have read some of her writing and think that through dialogue she could be convinced. It’s a small chance, but it’s worth it. As long as we are not changed it is a small price to pay to swallow pride and do what we can to bring her back. Christ spoke to whores and thieves all with the intent to bring them to the Light.

“Why not utilize that and just stop screwing these PUAs, if they are really as base and vile as women say they are? You say their actions are despicable. Fine. Then don’t reward their actions!”

The problem is the PUA doesn’t start yammering about what a gross skank you are until after sex. So he’s not getting “rewarded” for that. That said, sure, it’s a good idea to try to suss out in advance if someone’s an asshole and not sleep with him. But women aren’t responsible for causing assholish behavior in men like PUAs. We are all responsible for our own behavior.

“If a loyal, loving man is really what women are after they should be rewarding these men – and yes, they do exist, and in greater numbers than many women seem to accept.”

Sex as a “reward” for being a good guy seems a bit disturbing. If I started taking about having sex with men in order to “reward” them for behavior Iike, wouldn’t you all be screaming that I’m a controlling, manipulative bitch?

I do agree that loyal and loving men exist in large numbers. Indeed, I’d wager that MOST men are loyal and loving. But sex isn’t a reward dispensed by women for good character, any more than marriage is a reward for women’s good character. The intangibles of sexual attraction and/or love have to be there. That’s why plenty of nice guys don’t get laid, and plenty of nice gals don’t get married, and vice-versa.

“I think it is time that both sides of the equation start taking responsibility for their actions. If a woman remains chaste and then marries a decent man and is loyal to him in their marriage and he runs off on her – he is a swine and should be called out on it. And if you look at society you will see that he is”

Of course, both sides have to take responsibility for their actions — agreed. I think that a man is a swine if her runs off on his loyal wife even if she wasn’t chaste before marraige. If he agreed to the marriage, he owes her his loyalty (as she owes him hers) regardless of her premarital history (or his).

“I also think that a woman who rides the carousel for fifteen years and then starts looking for a husband has no one to blame but herself. It is a man’s prerogative to not want to commit to her, just as it was her prerogative not to commit herself to one man in all the preceding years.”

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that men and women should have the prerogative not to enter relationships they don’t want. All relationships — sexual, romantic, and marital- should be consensual. I definitely would NOT want to see a man marry a woman whom he despises because of her premarital past: such a marriage would be a recipe for disaster. Although I am highly critical of the double standard and slut-shaming, of course, you shouldn’t feel pressured to marry anyone you don’t want to for whatever reason. (That, of course, goes both ways.)

I wouldn’t think of the problem of a woman not being able to find a partner for marriage as a matter of “blame.” I know there is an argument here to the effect that women should get married very young — but a lot of older unmarried women might say, “Gee, I wish I could get married, but I wouldn’t have wanted to do it at 20, and so if the choice is being single now and marrying at 20, I would be single now.” It’s all a cost-benefit analysis. Personally, I married super-young because I just happened to meet the right person, but I wouldn’t have gotten married at that age just to get married and, indeed, would have preferred to stay single all my life than go that route.

There is a coarse bar-room quip that goes, if they didn’t have a P—y there would be a bounty on them.
DH and many other women have the hardest time understanding that most men “need” women for one thing, we tolerate the other “family” stuff because that’s the collateral damage we accept for the thing we want.
Men compartmentalize their lives; we have the job compartment, hobby compartment, friends compartment, woman compartment…and that compartment where women are appropriate men thoroughly enjoy, but most men do not obsess over relationships.
Women bring 4 things to the table of a relationship;
1) looks
2) virtue
3) personality
4) money, if they have any
As I think of the couples I know, I can’t think of one pair that are “soul mates”; you know, the type that live for each other, share everything, and joined at the hip so to speak.
If this PUA looks at his most recent score and has contempt of her as she dresses and sulks away, a further soiled dove, it’s a reflection of reality…he’s got further evidence that he’s a stud, and she is further damaged goods, a tramp.

“If I spent all my time searching for free spirits and unicorns, I’d get laid once a year.”

Oh no, only getting laid once a year — the horror!!!! Of course, you lot seem to expect that women refrain from getting laid at all unless and until they get married. Sooo, Evil alpha acting on his “need” to get laid is supposed to be completely sympathetic and understandable. But the “skanks” he sleeps with are terrible, horrible people if they act on the need to get laid. Well, that makes sense.

“Oh and by the way, fucking people you loathe is not a problem for men. I still can bust an awesome nut in to a hot bitch that I can’t stand. I even have had a few enemies with benefits.”

Ha ha, I’m sure you do. But it seems that you can’t stand them BECAUSE they are sleeping with you. Isn’t that what makes them skanks?

On the other hand, maybe not. You seem to make room for a certain kind of a woman, a “free spirit” whom you deem not skanky. So what’s the difference? Is a woman a “skank” because she has sex or is the something else she is doing that renders her a “skank” in your eyes.

“Although I am highly critical of the double standard and slut-shaming, of course, you shouldn’t feel pressured to marry anyone you don’t want to for whatever reason. (That, of course, goes both ways.”

This ain’t the right to vote. This is sex and marriage. There is no such thing as a double standard for that. Women collectively get to decide what they value in mates and Men collectively get to decide what we want in mates. They do not need to be and most likely will not be the same. Does your husband wear lacy panties for you? Wait don’t answer that.

“DH and many other women have the hardest time understanding that most men “need” women for one thing, we tolerate the other “family” stuff because that’s the collateral damage we accept for the thing we want . . .
Women bring 4 things to the table of a relationship;
1) looks
2) virtue
3) personality
4) money, if they have any.”

I’m not sure what you are saying, Buck, because I’m a little confused by the word, “need.” I think women only “need” men for sex too. And your list of what women bring to the table in a relationship sounds exactly the same as what men bring to the table. But your reference to “personality,” seems to imply that while men only “need” women for sex, they apparently “want” them for companionship and the like.

Your claim that men merely tolerate “the other ‘family’ stuff” is belied by the fact that men seem to settle down with women quite a bit despite the fact that the overwhelming percentage of men in America have sex before marraige anyway. Yet, they are still marrying and/or partnering with women. Marriage may not be as common as it once was, but it hasn’t exactly gone away.

If you are implying that men just don’t give a shit about women at all, except for sex, and if you’re right, then it’s a GOOD thing for women when men don’t marry them, no? Why exactly is a women supposed to be worried and upset about losing the companionship of some dude who has no use for her except as a sex dispenser? I’d say such a woman has dodged a bullet and is better off single, no?

DH – By “reward” I mean in a psychological sense, not a financial one. Any behavior that causes a positive feeling is an emotional reward. Like Buck said above, the PUA gets his notch and this validates to him that he is a stud. What does the woman in his example receive? If all she was after was an orgasm, and she indeed got that orgasm, then I fail to see how she’s a victim. If she was looking for anything more than that, she had a pretty piss-poor method for achieving it.

Any woman who does not want to get married when the opportunity arises made a decision. If she accepts this as her choice and lives with it, potentially for the rest of her life, then I have nothing to say to her. She followed her prerogative and accepts responsibility for her actions. As things are, there are numerous articles and videos out there of women complaining about the absence of good men. This I have a problem with. If she never found a man that a reasonable person would consider to be a good match then she has my sympathies. (There are women who know me online and offline who could attest to this.) More often than not, though, you get through the stories (I think Dalrock posted a link to an Atlantic article once) where there were options and they were rejected for any number of stupid reasons. These women need to accept the consequences of their actions. Their lives must serve as an example to others. The next generation of women must not follow in their footsteps if they desire to have different outcomes. (And for what it’s worth, I have talked to a number of women in their early twenties who have given me hope for the next batch.)

Evilalpha says: “This ain’t the right to vote. This is sex and marriage. There is no such thing as a double standard for that. Women collectively get to decide what they value in mates and Men collectively get to decide what we want in mates. They do not need to be and most likely will not be the same. Does your husband wear lacy panties for you? Wait don’t answer that.”

Hmmm, I didn’t realize these were collective decisions. I think you certainly have the right to say, “I will only marry a virgin,” but I have the right to say, “I would never marry a man who holds such a view.”

Marriage should be kept for those who are virgins. I don’t care if non-virgins don’t want to get married. A useless issue if ever there was one.

Only in the mind of a harlot would her threat of not marrying, because someone wants a virgin for a bride, be of importance. If you’re not a virgin and the guy wants a virgin bride, your bleetings of nonsensical nonsense means about as much as a diddlysquat.

Koevet says:
“By “reward” I mean in a psychological sense, not a financial one. Any behavior that causes a positive feeling is an emotional reward. Like Buck said above, the PUA gets his notch and this validates to him that he is a stud. What does the woman in his example receive? If all she was after was an orgasm, and she indeed got that orgasm, then I fail to see how she’s a victim. If she was looking for anything more than that, she had a pretty piss-poor method for achieving it.”

ME: No, I understood that you mean “reward” in a psychological sense. I still find the notion of using “sex” as a reward somewhat off-puttingly manipulative. That said, it may be a matter of the verbiage you’ve chosen. Certainly, it is wise to refuse to engage sexually with men who treat you poorly because why would you want to be in that situation?

I agree that a woman who sleeps with a PUA and gets the sex she’s looking for is not a victim — unless the PUA does something to treat her poorly. If he wants to privately think, “Ew, what a disgusting person she is for sleeping with me,” then that’s his problem, not hers. So I’m not sure SHE is the victim of his private thoughts, or even his public musings, if they are about “skanks” in general rather than her in particular. The point is more that seducing a woman and then blaming her for being seduced is a morally repugnant viewpoint; it’s not that she’s a victim necessarily, it’s that his character is exposed for its nastiness and hypocricy.

YOU: “Any woman who does not want to get married when the opportunity arises made a decision. If she accepts this as her choice and lives with it, potentially for the rest of her life, then I have nothing to say to her. She followed her prerogative and accepts responsibility for her actions.”

ME: It is her prerogative — and a wise one to follow. If she married some guy she didn’t like back in 1993, she wouldn’t be any better off. She’d just be shackled to some guy she didn’t like. And it would unfair to him. Talk about being used! Would you want someone to marry you just to get married, rather than because they actually want to be married to you specifically?????

I don’t see how turning down Guy A has much of anything to do with a woman wishing that a man she WANTS to marry would come on the scene.

YOU: “As things are, there are numerous articles and videos out there of women complaining about the absence of good men. This I have a problem with. If she never found a man that a reasonable person would consider to be a good match then she has my sympathies. (There are women who know me online and offline who could attest to this.) More often than not, though, you get through the stories (I think Dalrock posted a link to an Atlantic article once) where there were options and they were rejected for any number of stupid reasons. These women need to accept the consequences of their actions. Their lives must serve as an example to others. The next generation of women must not follow in their footsteps if they desire to have different outcomes. (And for what it’s worth, I have talked to a number of women in their early twenties who have given me hope for the next batch.)”

Well, I would certainly DISAGREE with the notion that there is an absence of good men to choose from. That said, I think that it is a GOOD thing to reject a man (or woman) you don’t want to marry for whatever reason, however stupid. If you don’t want to be married to someone, you’re probably setting yourself (and the other person) up for a life of unhappiness by forcing it. Men and women aren’t interchangeable. Whom to marry is a highly personal and idioscyncratic decision.

The problem goes deeper than that. As a woman, she should not be “teaching”.

Titus 2:1-5
“But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things–that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.”

David Collard says:
“DH, I would only marry a virgin. I did. Your disapproval means nothing to me.”

Well, of course not! That’s kind of what I’m getting at. It goes BOTH ways. You wouldn’t want to marry me and I wouldn’t want to marry you, so we shouldn’t get married. This is not difficult.

But the implication in this thread seems to be that non-virginal woman should change their values and behavior in order to attract the David Collards of the world. But that doesn’t follow. It seems to me that if a woman’s values are that at odds with yours, then she wouldn’t be happy with you anyway and would be better off single. I don’t believe any woman wants to get married at ALL costs. There is always a price that’s too high.

And let’s just dismiss the Madonna/whore straw man right away. Damn feminist myths!

Slutty is a continuum that includes not only “how many”, but “where”, “when”,”why”, “how” and “whom” You’re a woman and wanna get laid. Fuck a male friend. He will fuck you. Or get a boyfriend. Men are low maintenance. Blow job and a sammich and you typically get the run of the place.

But noooo. Girls just gotta hop on that hypergamous slut train down to skankville. 2 am booty call to a known PUA? And why? Who knows. Cause girls sure got other options. I feel the same way about skanks as I do the rich stealing money. Bernie Madoff. WTF? Nothing but contempt.

The problem is the PUA doesn’t start yammering about what a gross skank you are until after sex. So he’s not getting “rewarded” for that.

BS. He told the woman on the show that he keeps a spreadsheet of all of the women that he banged. What the hamster said: “I’m not going to touch his [censored]”. If this were the truth, there would be no further interview. She was very much interested in him after that, to the point that she came over and got into his bed.

He also wrote the quote about “after you banged her and her mascara is running”, published under his own name. There is no mystery here. The problem is he understands female psychology too well. He knows he can say all of this openly and still have young women throw themselves at him, because what women say they want and what they respond to are two entirely different things.

@lalady

To me, the female equivalent of a PUA would be a beautiful woman who collects gifts from men under false pretenses- by giving them hope that one day they may sleep with her (or even be in a relationship with her) when in actually she has no interest in them beyond fancy dinners and jewelry. Male PUAs do the same thing, except they falsify interest beyond sex to get sex. Both usually move on and leave their “prey” heartbroken.

BS. This is rationalization for women pursuing these men even though they know what they are getting into. He is delivering exactly what he says he will deliver. Watch the clip again. This doesn’t make it moral, but this is another issue entirely.

I know both of these strategies are way outside you Christian view of morality, Dalrock, but I have a feeling others in the manosphere would be all up in arms about the former being a “bad woman” while the latter gets a pass. And from what I’ve observed, this male version of this behavior is much more common- perhaps because the male sex drive is especially strong, although that shouldn’t matter when determining whether it’s right or wrong.

This is the core philosophy of Gilliganism. If we only shamed the players, they would go away and we wouldn’t have unhappy sluts. But look at the show. The PUA is impervious to social shaming. It is part of what makes him a successful PUA. The whole point of the show is to shame him on national TV, and he is enjoying it. He is not at all unsettled. Can you imagine if one person in the audience had asked Heather if she wasn’t acting like a whore? She would have burst off the stage in tears. Now imagine an entire show dedicated to shining an unflinching moral light on her larger sexual behavior. Would she have been unflappable like Paul? The reality is for every Heather you shame away from promiscuity, you have that number fewer women (and ultimately children) caught up in it. The Pauls on the other hand are impervious to it, and even if you somehow knocked one or two out, the remaining ones will quite happily pick up the extra slut banging workload.

If you actually care about preventing the harm of promiscuity from happening to women, the answer is slut shaming. If on the other hand you want to provide moral cover for them, carry on little buddy.

Dalrock, check your spam folder again, I think one of my comments got stuck there. Was just a link to the Daily Mail article about Kirsten, of Twilight fame, cheating on Mr perfect, twinkly, Jesus, handyman hunk, Robert Pattinson. I thought that was a laugh. Even Mr perfect is no longer perfect and worthy of cheating on.

[D: I don’t see it. If it was there I already emptied it. How long ago did you post it?]

van Rooinek, yes, but there is no implication in that verse that women should teach publicly. And is Sheila telling young women to obey their husbands, as the verse stipulates? No.

Whatever type of serious Christian you are, Sheila should be ignored. If she wants to wrire books about cooking or nuclear physics, fine. But she should shut up about Christian marriage. Apart from anything else, she is emasculating her husband.

Doomed Harlot says: “Hmmm, I didn’t realize these were collective decisions. I think you certainly have the right to say, “I will only marry a virgin,” but I have the right to say, “I would never marry a man who holds such a view.”

Oh please. If you cared about rights you wouldn’t have used the pejorative term “double standard’ or “slut shaming” to characterize another’s opinion. Gendered labels are collective. Don’t play coy.

Dalrock,
I don’t know. The spreadsheet thing isn’t an insult though. It’s just really geeky. It’s not like saying, “You dirty skank.” I think you and I agreed that the spreadsheet thing was just about a high partner count and that Ms. Fink was expressing a double standard when she held it against him.
In terms of the mascara comment in his book, do you think all these 2 a.m. booty call women have read his book? I tend to doubt it.

Either way, it’s not women’s responsibility to manipulate men’s behavior with sex. We are each individually responsible for not being assholes.

Yup, I’m sure this is the appetizer before she heads out to cuck hubby. Same old story, women show up to puff up their…….chests, not to learn anything. With the ubiquity of facebook I question the efficiency of using a blog like Dalrock’s.

Are you saying that Sheila is teaching what is clearly stated in Titus 2:1-5? She is doing nothing of the kind. She teaches wives to submit to their husbands by giving them lists of chores. She teaches wives to disregard their husband’s preferences in how they look, to get haircuts like men. None of this is anywhere near in line with the Scripture you cite.

Beyond that, she calls her work a “ministry”, and that she teaches other women to lead their own “ministries” as well. I can find the link to where she writes about this if you like.

TFH,
You are right that this is entertaining to me. But, sadly, no gina tingles. If only! No, it’s more like entering a sad, dystopian universe, and then having the pleasure of emerging afterwards into reality where men and women are kind and decent.

Evilalpha,
Ideas count. You have my blessing to choose a wife or sexual partners on any basis you please (as long as they are of age), but I can certainly critique your assumptions about the proper behavior of women.
I’m still confused by what makes “a skank.” Just women who sleep with PUAs? But are you not yourself a PUA, since you label yourself “evilalpha?”

Doomed Harlot said “The point is more that seducing a woman and then blaming her for being seduced is a morally repugnant viewpoint; it’s not that she’s a victim necessarily, it’s that his character is exposed for its nastiness and hypocrisy.”

Nasty? Nope. Hypocritical? Nope.

When the day comes that I can just tap women on the shoulder, be honest and say “You’re hot. Let’s fuck”. And they respond. “I appreciate the offer, kind sir, but I’m banging my best friend” then and only then can you consider my PUA actions nasty and hypocritical. But until then consider me practical.

“Ideas count. You have my blessing to choose a wife or sexual partners on any basis you please (as long as they are of age), but I can certainly critique your assumptions about the proper behavior of women.”

Except you didn’t critique, nor bless. You used pejorative terms to describe my values. The term “double standard” and “slut shaming” are not neutral.

She sure provides entertainment value, however, she continues to derail threads so that they become about her and what she thinks is right and wrong, instead of the topic at hand. I prefer to open my presents in Christmas in December though.

Talking of presents, is there a return policy on DH and can we get her replaced?

You claim that the woman who uses men for money and gifts is less common than the promiscuous man who sleeps around and uses men for sex.

I call BS.

Almost every woman I’ve ever known employs or has employed the “wine me, dine me, maybe-you’ll-get-to-69-me” strategy with men interested in her. He’s expected to supplicate and give tribute in the form of meals, drinks and entertainment (which he pays for). If, and only if, she decides his supplication is enough, she might — MIGHT — let him sex her. She only does this with men who aren’t attractive or of lesser attractiveness. But if he’s hot, they’re going straight to the sex.

There’s now a phenomenon called “rinsing”. Women meet men online and extract gifts from those men — often without even meeting the men. Certainly they aren’t having sex with these men — just the promise they might meet someday. Any man who falls for this deserves to be separated from his money.

Deti mentions “rinsing”….. Is it so wrong that I am now contemplating posting an online profile claiming to be a hot nineteen year old with accompanying fake photos and soliciting funds? After all, I would only have to flake out of every first date…. Oh the possibilities! How big does your blue pill have to be to fall for this?

It’s not that seduction is nasty and hypocritical. It’s the slagging off someone for sleeping with you that’s nasty and hypocritical.

This is a straw man argument. I don’t see PUAs in general wasting much energy on the morality of promiscuous women. What I do see are warnings from such men to Betas not to make the mistake of marrying these women, because they are setting themselves up for a sexless marriage followed by an “I’m not haaaapy” divorce (with all the fixins). I also see them calling the women out on their hypocrisy, for giving it away for free to men like themselves and then pretending they aren’t that kind of girl to shame men into paying up and “committing” in one form or another. Show me in the clip where the PUA was passing moral judgment on women for being promiscuous (vs what I just described above). If (when) you can’t find it there, show me a prominent gamer in the manosphere who does this (again vs what I described). I’ll stand by with great patience.

In the meantime though, I’ll ask that you and others quit making this claim until one of you can back it up.

Feminist Hater, Nice try, but nope, I think even Dalrock would agree that I engaged the topic of the post directly. All other comments have been directly in response to people who have responded to my comment engaging the thread, and I think they fairly derive from the thread, other than a couple of facetious responses to insults directed at me.

Anyway, it’s been fun playing tonight, evilalpha. Have fun with your poolside skanks. I’m off to dinner. xoxoxoxoxo

But . . . come on now. The subtext of his statement is obvious. I think he is expressing his contempt for the women who sleep with him, his belief that what they are doing shameful. And if so, that’s pretty despicable — because he is ACTIVELY trying to get these women to engage in an activity that he views as shameful on their part. He is luring and seducing and PUA-ing them into doing something that he thinks makes them unworthy of respect. He is basically saying, “Hey, sleep with me and then after you do, I’m going to point and laugh.” That makes him a very small person. And he should be shamed for that.

No.

Re-watch how he puts context on that quote. He says this:

So what exactly is offensive abou that? I, I’m.. in that statement I’m basically saying men and women are equal, we’re all just trying ot get by in this world, and dont, as a man trying to learn some game, don’t put women up on a pedestal and think she is untouchable. Everyone has their own foibles and hangups and I think that alot of mans insecurity is that they elevate the women so much that they have fear of approach.

That ^^ Is absolutely true. It happens to a lot of guys, it’s something I personally struggle with. His goal likely has nothing to do with whether or not the women who sleep with him will be ashamed of their actions with him. His goal is to try to feel better about himself, and recognizing that the person you just slept with is no more sexually “powerful” than you are is a validating feeling for anyone of either sex. This is particularly true for men who grew up being shamed about what they are, as I suspect may have happened to this guy.

Dalrock, I was thinking of the comment we deconstructed above where he shames women who sleep with him for looking messed after sex. Whether he’s moralizing or not, the point is that he’s pissing all over them, at least in that particular comment.

Haven’t watched the clips yet but I will when I have a chance. Have a lovely evening and thank you for letting me play!

Jeremy,
Well, I wasn’t able to watch the clip from the computer I’m using right now, so I have been missing some aspects of this. But I did say this above as soon as I responded to the quote:

“On the one hand, he could simply be saying that you shouldn’t be intimidated to approach attractive members of the opposite sex, because after all, we all put our pants on one leg at a time, i.e. we’re all just people. And if that’s his point, I agree with him.”

However, I am not sure I buy it because I think the references to messed up mascara and squeazing themselves into Size 2 jeans is really meant to be derogatory.

The topic is about how a PUA is taken to task for taking willing women to bed and then discarding them afterwards. This women came to his bed at 2 in the morning because she needed or wanted sex. The whole topic is why Fake Dr. Phil drags him over the coals and not miss slut. She is the same as him, she is not virtuous. Yet Dr. Philly boy seems intent to grind on about how Mr PUA iis in the wrong and not her. To most of us, the issue of a whore being used by a player is completely a non-issue, it doesn’t register, what registers is that society at large chooses to defend these willing sluts at any cost. To you the idea of the slut being used registers and thus that becomes the direction of your debate, hence the derailment.

You keep dragging it onto you and how you think a PUA should act or not act.

@doomed harlot
“Dalrock, I was thinking of the comment we deconstructed above where he shames women who sleep with him for looking messed after sex.”

You have no idea what he is actually doing or saying, because you can’t really grasp and internalize the issue he is trying to address – namely, the tendency of many men who are unsuccessful with women to view attractive women as unattainable goddesses. You say you get that, but the ease with which you dismiss it as the explanation for his statement shows you don’t.

“On the one hand, he could simply be saying that you shouldn’t be intimidated to approach attractive members of the opposite sex, because after all, we all put our pants on one leg at a time, i.e. we’re all just people. And if that’s his point, I agree with him.”

However, I am not sure I buy it because I think the references to messed up mascara and squeazing themselves into Size 2 jeans is really meant to be derogatory.

I did read that, and I concede you qualified your post. I don’t think references to messed up mascara or putting jeans on is derogatory. Nobody comes away from such encounters with perfect dignity, nobody. In truth we’re all just animals that have learned/evolved to reason and respect, but the animal nature is never far away. This is a blessing and a curse but it makes us human. That’s all I took from such language.

To me, the female equivalent of a PUA would be a beautiful woman who collects gifts from men under false pretenses- by giving them hope that one day they may sleep with her (or even be in a relationship with her) when in actually she has no interest in them beyond fancy dinners and jewelry. Male PUAs do the same thing, except they falsify interest beyond sex to get sex. Both usually move on and leave their “prey” heartbroken.

Nope, not the same. The women gets hot alpha sex. She might ride the carrousel for years, enjoying every minute of it. Eventually she might want to get off. Remember, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

What I do see are warnings from such men to Betas not to make the mistake of marrying these women, because they are setting themselves up for a sexless marriage followed by an “I’m not haaaapy” divorce

Same answer, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta. Doing this for years ruins them forever. Can they not see this? I know, they don’t understand cause and effect very well.

Rinsing sounds a lot like the nigerian 419 scams played out on relationship websites.

The targets can be any age or gender. What happens is that the target is played into thinking a fictitious person overseas wants to date them. Eventually there is a meet time and date set. But the person never arrives,because of some ‘accident’ or sick relative. The target is persuaded into sending money to help.

I have spoken to people that send tens of thousands of dollars away.

Interesting parallel to women using rinsing. False promises never intended to be kept. Essentially, these women are scammers. Except society encourages, expects it, and legally enforces cash and prizes by means of frivolous divorce to women who play this.

I agree with you that she is not following Biblical teachings on marriage and that she needs to change her position, though I believe that van Rooinek’s dialogue holds the potential to bring this about.

One problem though: She’s been subject to this dialogue in some form or another for almost a year now. It could be longer given other sites, but just to look at Dalrock’s, his first post is on Sept 11 2011. She has also appeared on this site as a commenter. If it hasn’t happened yet it isn’t going to happen, and she’s gotten much more grace than she probably deserves in the light that there’s still people thinking that she’ll see the light. At some point you just got to stop, and deal with her as Titus 3:10-11 suggests (note that says “man”, that opens another kettle of fish on her), and expose her words for what they are as Ephesians 5:11 suggests.

van Rooinek:

Older women are to teach younger women. That’s biblically permitted.

David Collard:

van Rooinek, yes, but there is no implication in that verse that women should teach publicly. And is Sheila telling young women to obey their husbands, as the verse stipulates? No.

While Titus 2 exists, the writer in no way imagined women acting in the way as the apostles did (really the only close comparison we can take out of the Bible to what Sheila does). And even ignoring the rest of what Scripture has to say on marriage, it’s pretty clear Sheila Gregoire is failing in upholding Titus 2:1-5 in most everything that she is writing by her vapid feminism, support of Marriage 2.0, and support of frivolous divorce. The last part of verse 5 is particularly interesting, especially since she has given much occasion for it to happen.

a PUA who is psycho-analyzed on any TV show will be publicly shamed by the undertone of the feminist imperative, no matter how tight his game is. This is the society we live in.

Even outside that frame, the art of the approach is like magic – it is only as fascinating as its illusive intrigue. Once the mechanics behind the magic are revealed, the wow factor is gone. That is why, someone with relatively tight game like Janka, who passed endless shit tests from hamster zookeeper dr. phil and the rabid feminist audience, lost points by revealing his spreadsheet numbers to the girl (Fink) and the cameras. No girl wants to feel like an option that can be acquired through a rational method – it takes the power out of their pannies. Chances are, Fink had higher numbers than him. If not, then many female audience members with notches easily in the trips, mostly with b-boys like Janka anyway. And 132 sounds like a lot, but it is essentially once a month every year for a little over a decade, which makes sense considering he is in his low 30s.

If anyone watched the video through part 5, you’ll see Janka coach a Dr. Phil volunteer (Nardeep) in an NYC bar, and do so rather successfully. Following, nardeep (who had basic social game with good improvisational conversation skills) claimed that he felt proud, but was stern to give no credit to Janka, because his beta buffers override his cognitive dissonance. We all know he is going to buy Janka’s book after the show and study it like a deprived heroin addict, because he learned in 3 minutes what would have normally taken 3 years. After the interview, when Dr. Phil realizes that Janka is actually legit without any sign of defensiveness, he quickly winds the show down and cuts it off because his hamster wheel runs out of fuel. then, Janka will add Fink to his spreadsheet as #133 after the show because she had turbulent tingles while within his stage proximity.

on another note, refreshing to hear GB4M wax lyric on something other than bernakifying butthexing. equally entertaining, but alternatively refreshing.

She’s been subject to this dialogue in some form or another for almost a year now. It could be longer given other sites, but just to look at Dalrock’s, his first post is on Sept 11 2011. She has also appeared on this site as a commenter. If it hasn’t happened yet it isn’t going to happen, and she’s gotten much more grace than she probably deserves in the light that there’s still people thinking that she’ll see the light.

Yes, exactly.
When dealing with the feminine imperative, one must always remember:

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who will not understand, no explanation is possible.

Promisciuty is the reward men enjoy for being disposable. When women are no longer the “protected” species on account of their role as mothers and primary care givers, they may then “enjoy” the same leve of promisciuty as men, but be “cursed” with the same level of disposability.

We need to be careful about using the word “hypergamy” which was first used in context of Hindu and Chinese caste systems. Our culture is casteless and women date across class lines, whomever floats their boat. Ours is a more benevolent and male friendly system because all of us have the means to improve ourselves, “game” if you will, and move up on the 1-10 scale, thus empowering ourselves to attract more attractive and better women, even women of higher class and earning power than ourselves. Ours is a free sexual market as opposed to sexual marxism. We’ve got it quite good actually. Better than we ever had.

@Buck,“DH and many other women have the hardest time understanding that most men “need” women for one thing, we tolerate the other “family” stuff because that’s the collateral damage we accept for the thing we want ”

There is a simple way of classifying promiscuous people which is gender neutral so feminists cannot argue with.
Stud – someone who has already “paid” for his/her promiscuity through sacrifice, heroism etc (mostly men here)
Scud – someone who is potentially on the hook to “pay” for his/her promiscuity – this Janka guy is one of them
Slut – someone who will never be asked or expected to “pay” for his/her promiscuity (mostly women here)

I wasn’t rationalizing Heather’s behavior at all, you’re right, it should have been pretty clear to her what she was getting into in that particular situation. I guess I was talking more about the larger manosphere offering advice on how to get into women’s pants by dropping false hints of beta in addition to alpha since the solely focusing on the latter often scares normal relationship-oriented women off (Perhaps I’ve just been reading too much Roissy, er… Chateau Heartiste). I can’t recall ever reading similar advice targeted at women, and I’d feel like a pretty shitty person if I ever did such a thing, although that’s not to say that some women don’t. So yes, shaming the man- or woman-version of this type of PUA is unlikely to be very effective since neither one would seem to have very much empathy for their fellow human beings. I’m not against slut-shaming women like Heather though. I think you’re calling her a “whore” is an insult to whores- whores get paid for that kind of behavior!

@deti

A woman might use the “wine me, dine me, maybe-you’ll-get-to-69-me” strategy to suss out if a man she’s really interested in is really interested in her back- it doesn’t have to be evil. Feminism notwithstanding, if a man doesn’t offer to pay it’s a pretty clear indication he’s not particularly interested in you (for more than sex). I was talking about where a woman is NOT interested at all sexually and she knows it, but continues to lead the man on so he keeps giving her goodies. I’ve had opportunities to do this, and was tempted to do it a few times back when I’d first “taken the red pill” and was sort of bitter at men in general, but usually felt like it was the wrong thing to do (besides not actually getting back at the sorts of men I was bitter about).

Elaine, all men are disposable, but only a small percentage of them get to be promiscuous. I’ll take being protected any day. As for the primary care givers, why is it that children who are only bought up by the mother trend towards having many more issues then those bought up in a stable, 2 parent home? That doesn’t sound like any example of good care I’ve ever heard of.

I agree with lalady, I wish women would get back at men. Get back at men by not sleeping with them until the men commit in marriage. That will teach them.

Of course Mr Alpha comes along; and then all bets are off…

Also, I don’t sleep around with women and I refuse to pay for their meal for the first date, second date, third date and on and on, until such time as she proves she’s actually interested in marriage, a virgin and willing to stay that way till she gets married.

If I dd pay, I could generally see myself forking out money for nothing else other than the nagging of a woman who sees me as nothing but a walking wallet. I think it’s entirely appropriate for a woman to pay her share until such time as they can prove their interest in the man is not for monetary reasons.

I wasn’t rationalizing Heather’s behavior at all, you’re right, it should have been pretty clear to her what she was getting into in that particular situation. I guess I was talking more about the larger manosphere offering advice on how to get into women’s pants by dropping false hints of beta in addition to alpha since the solely focusing on the latter often scares normal relationship-oriented women off (Perhaps I’ve just been reading too much Roissy, er… Chateau Heartiste).

Admittedly I am not a regular reader at Heartiste, and he has written a large number of posts over the years. However, I’ve never seen him suggest that men hold out the prospect of commitment in exchange for sex. This goes against his and his readers’ goals. What they want is fast low investment sex, and if they then feel that the woman would be good for an LTR they will see if she is willing. What I do see is men like Roosh suggesting the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Roosh in one post challenged players to not “date” any woman they hadn’t already had sex with. What you are calling “relationship-oriented women” don’t have sex with strangers or men they don’t already have a relationship with, so the idea that these women are being tricked is laughable. In addition, you are using a meaningless term “relationship” to paint serial monogamy as somehow moral, again reframing towards the female imperative. There is no commitment in an LTR. Either side is free to leave at will, for any or no reason. But whenever this is pointed out the female imperative ants go back to work trying to rebuild the female imperative frame/mound, instead of dealing with the logical factual argument.

Either way, there is a huge hamster driven effort to claim that these men are making “relationship” promises prior to sex, but it is based in rationalizing the women’s choices and not the facts. It is in fact quite cruel to young women, becuase it enables their bad choices by giving them false comfort. It lets women go after the PUAs they are attracted to while claiming the PUA promised them a “relationship”. She’s really just a good girl who happens to offer sex to the wrong men. Feel free to show me the examples you had in mind though. If what you are saying is true it should be very easy to find posts of prominent manosphere PUAs telling men to lure women into pump n dumps with promises of commitment. But as I wrote above to DH, please refrain from continuing to make this claim if you can’t back it up.

A woman might use the “wine me, dine me, maybe-you’ll-get-to-69-me” strategy to suss out if a man she’s really interested in is really interested in her back- it doesn’t have to be evil.

in william bennet’s “book of man,” he leaves out the heart and soul of western civilization. a better name for bennet’s book would have been, “the book of fanboy manginas.”

bennet ignores the central, exalted message of genesis, and then ups the ante by debauching and debasing the iliad faster than a neocon can debase a dollar to fund the perpetual warfare/welfare state. to top it all off, bennet ignores the most-decorated war veteran of all time.

completely absent from bennet’s book is the awesome work of the jews in genesis:

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

in the classical, judeo-christian, chivalric context, a man would man up as he would be guaranteed, a non-asscocked, chaste woman who be shamed out of not acting on and serving every gina tingle and butt tingle. instead of serving her butt and gina tingles, a woman would be expected to serve god, man, and family. for this, she would be honored in a civilized context.

completely absent from bennet’s book is the divine RAGE of ACHILLES–the very center and circumference of homer’s iliad. achilles is robbed of his prize and property by his commander, and so, his anger ignited, achilles quits the greek army in the first showdown between man and state. zeus sides with achilles, exalting the Natural Law that John Locke and Thomas Jefferson would someday exalt in their respective poetry. achilles rages as he reasons, “if i’m the one fighting, doing all the work, why are you getting all the rewards?” indeed, so might a marine wonder these days, if he’s taking all the risks for a few hundred dollars a month, why does bill bennet get to sit back home in vegas, gambling millions away? so it is that bill bennet is working for the fiat bankers in all his blustering books, which serve far more to debauch and desecrate–to contort and confuse–than they do to exalt and enlighten. why isn’t bill bennet telling all the army-wives to “woman up” and stp with the buttcocking adultery, and serve their men with loyalty as Yahweh commands them to, and as Penelope does in Homer’s Odyssey? It’s because bennet is well-paid in fiat dollar to hate on home and the bible.

finally, bill bennet, who “never buckled on armor nor suited up for ballte” in the words of achilles, also ignores the most-decorated general of our own era:

[quote]
“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
In another often cited quote from the book Butler says:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
[/quote] –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket –War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially benefit from warfare.

Compare warrior Smedley’s words to those of Achilles, who also questions teh utility of war:

[quote]
Ulysses, noble son of Laertes, I should give you formal notice plainly and in all fixity of purpose that there be no more of this cajoling, from whatsoever quarter it may come. Him do I hate even as the gates of hell who says one thing while he hides another in his heart; therefore I will say what I mean. I will be appeased neither by Agamemnon son of Atreus nor by any other of the Danaans, for I see that I have no thanks for all my fighting. He that fights fares no better than he that does not; coward and hero are held in equal honour, and death deals like measure to him who works and him who is idle. I have taken nothing by all my hardships- with my life ever in my hand; as a bird when she has found a morsel takes it to her nestlings, and herself fares hardly, even so man a long night have I been wakeful, and many a bloody battle have I waged by day against those who were fighting for their women. With my ships I have taken twelve cities, and eleven round about Troy have I stormed with my men by land; I took great store of wealth from every one of them, but I gave all up to Agamemnon son of Atreus. He stayed where he was by his ships, yet of what came to him he gave little, and kept much himself.
[/quote]

And so you see why the gambling, warmongering, chicken-hawk, mysandric, soulless Bennett is calling upon men to man up while debauching and deconstructing their heritage–it is because, at the fiat baneker’s behest, he needs the men to take all the risk, while bennet and the fiat bankers get all the rewards, celebrating their conquest of other men’s wives with the famous buttocker and secretive taper of butthext tucker max rhymes with goldman sax, who the weekly standard casts as a six-foot tall hero, repeating the butthexer’s lies, while ignoring the true, selfless heroism of those Achilles and Smedley Butlers fighting and dying on foreign shores in foreign wars.

Begging your pardon GBFM, but this is the finest bit of input I’ve ever seen you write, and one of the best I’ve ever seen on this blog (and that’s saying quite a bit). sedit qui timuit ne non succederet* … Thanks, man.

*means: if you want to make your mark, you’d better get up off your ass.

@GB4M “War Is A Racket” is on my list of books to read.
Having all the information is critical to self-managing your perspective, thought, and attitude. “Dr.” Phil represents an authority whose opinions are to have more weight ( no pun intended ) than those of his guest whose scientific method is more honest and more effective in trial. What feminists/so-cons are afraid of is that this information is spreading. My question is why was it hidden and to what purpose. GB4M in his inimitable way pulls back the cover. Get others to pay retail for what was given away for free, “when they were younger, hotter, tighter,….and 40 lbs lighter.”..lolzzzololzz

“Where you paying attention Neo or were you looking at the women in the red dress?”……”Look again.”

A video game method and system for creating games where ideas have consequences, incorporating branching paths that correspond to a player’s choices, wherein paths correspond to decisions founded upon ideals, resulting in exalted games with deeper soul and story, enhanced characters and meanings, and exalted gameplay. The classical hero’s journey may be rendered, as the journey hinges on choices pivoting on classical ideals. Ideas that are rendered in word and deed will have consequences in the gameworld. Historical events such as The American Revolution may be brought to life, as players listen to famous speeches and choose sides. As great works of literature and dramatic art center around characters rendering ideals real, both internally and externally, in word and deed, in love and war, the present invention will afford video games that exalt the classical soul, as well as the great books, classics, and epic films—past, present, and future.

1. A method for creating video games and virtual realities wherein ideas have consequences.

2. The method in claim 1 where said ideas are rooted in classical, epic precepts such as those found in the Great Books and Classics, and exalted at the pinnacles of Western culture and history.

3. The method in claim 1 where said ideas are manifested in the words the player or non-player characters, write, speak, read, disseminate, congregate about, fight for, and/or associate with.

4. The method in claim 1 where said ideas are manifested in the actions the player, non-player characters, and/or monsters act out.

5. The method in claim 1 where said ideas spread like viruses, by being spoken, written, or disseminated in some other manner, transforming characters who come in contact with said ideas into vampires, zombies, or other forms of monsters.

6. The method in claim 1 where said ideas spread like viruses, by being spoken, written, or disseminated in some other manner, transforming characters who come in contact with said ideas into vampires, zombies, or other forms of monsters, and where said vampires, zombies, and monsters may be saved or converted back to normal by coming in contact with ideas that oppose the ideas that made them vampires, zombies, and other forms of monsters.

7. The method in claim 1 where said ideas must be fought for via words and dialogue, before they have exalted consequences.

8. The method in claim 1 where said ideas must be fought for via deeds and actions, before they have exalted consequences.

9. The method in claim 1 where the player can fight for said ideas in word and deed, and witness the exalted consequences of those ideals, including liberty, freedom, and justice, when they succeed, and the dire consequences of tyranny, domination, and intimidation, when they fail to render exalted ideas, as ideas have consequences.

10. The method in claim 1 where the character can fight for said ideas such as marriage, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and right to life in word and deed, and witness the exalted consequences of those ideals, including a stable and enduring society should they succeed, and a declining, bankrupt civilization, should they fail.

11. The method in claim 1 where the character can battle for said ideas that are based upon classical moral and economic principles of famous philosophers, prophets, poets, statesmen, and economists including Plato, Moses, Jesus, Gandhi Sun Tzu, Buda, Jefferson, Aristotle, F. A. Hayek, Martin Luther King Jr., Homer, Ludwig Von Mises, Adam Smith, and others, and witness the consequences of both their success and failure of their battle, as the consequences are rendered in the game’s physical world.

12. The method in claim 1 where the character can battle for said ideas via both word and deed, using a combination of words and action, witnessing the consequences of their balance between word and deed, between reasoning and partaking in violence, thusly bringing to life epic classical works of film and literature wherein the hero must balance word and deed.

13. The method in claim 1 where fighting for said ideas in word and/or deed will have consequences regarding the operation of a weapon, which will operate at its full potential for the players and characters who are the most successful in serving ideals and ideas, and rendering them in word and deed.

14. The method in claim 1 wherein said ideas may be based upon Constitutional ideals and ideas underlying the American Founding, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, sound currency, the right to bear arms, the freedom of speech, the right of the artist, author, and inventor to own their creations and inventions; and wherein the player could fight for sound money in word and deed and witness the consequences of their successes and failures, including liberty, wealth creation, capitalism, freedom, private property, peace, and prosperity or rapid inflation, deflation, theft via the inflation tax, massive debt, empire, long lines, wealth transfer to the rich, depressions, corruption, and war.

15. The method in claim 1 where the said ideas will be supported or opposed by in-game characters, and the player will have to choose how to interact with the said in-game characters, based on their ideas, including but not limited to whether or not to befriend them, agree with them, disagree with them, ignore them, recruit them, shoot them, save them, judge them, or forgive them.

16. The method in claim 1 where the said ideas are based upon the pivotal plot points of the great books and classics.

17. The method in claim 1 where said ideas spread like viruses, by being spoken, written, or disseminated in some other manner, transforming characters who come in contact with said ideas into vampires, zombies, or other forms of monsters; and when bad ideas have infected too many in-game characters, the consequences are dire, including the loss of life, liberty, happiness, freedom, and security.

18. The method in claim 1 wherein said ideas may be related to economics and monetary policy, and wherein the player could fight for sound money in words echoing the classical economists and deed and witness the consequences of their successes and failures, including liberty, freedom, peace and prosperity or rapid inflation, deflation, theft via the inflation tax, massive debt, empire, long lines, depressions, corruption, and war.

19. The method in claim 1 wherein moral ideas have moral consequences in the evolution of the gameworld.

20. The method in claim 1 where said ideas in the video game world are founded upon the natural ideas and ideals occurring at the plot points in great works of literature and film where a character must choose whether to serve an ideal or not serve an ideal, thusly rendering or not rendering ideals real by their actions, and influencing the greater outcome and state of the game world, as ideas have consequences.

21. The method in claim 1 where said ideas in the video game world are used to exalt the classic hero’s journey, and where a player’s success and progress at every stage or step or plot point of said hero’s journey is defined by said player’s service or disservice to said ideas and ideals, and where by said player’s serving said ideas and classical ideals, said hero’s journey advances towards ultimate victory and triumph, while by said character’s failing to serve said ideas and classical ideals, progress in said hero’s journey is retarded or reversed.

and as divorce and adultery oft runz higher amongst “good christinaz,” we might put all da bibles in the club tavernz and open it on sunday morning and put all da hiphop techno in da church with da kegeratorz and top-shelf vodkas and jack danielzz lzozozoz and have firday and saturday night sermonz in da church dancing and buttcocking all night longz, which wuld be par for the course and less offensive to today’s liberated church minstearz zlzozlzozo

in Prince Caspian, C.S. Lewis celebrates everything the PUA community knows! But unlike Chirst and Moses, he does not pass judgement on it!

C.S. Lewis celebrates:
1. hypergammy
2. doing anything (even butthext yaya!) lzozozoozo
3. getting rammed by da bro bromios lzozzoz (C.S. Lewis was a bro yo!)
4. celebrating good christian women getting inseminated by the yo bro ram cockas, so they can go home to their good christian slave husbands, who will pay and labor for the spawn of other bro ramming menz. lozzozooz
5. note that Aslan (C.S. Lewis’s “beastiality jesus” is at the center of the insemination of the women by the badbor bro ram lzozozozozozo)

is there any doubt, in anyone’s mind, why your daughters are whores and your sons all strive to be bros and ramming thugs who would do anying (even butthext! yaya!)? it’s because of what c.s. lewis taught them! lzozolzoz

“p. 152 – “The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from who were soon capering among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy’s, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, ‘There’s a chap who might do anything — absolutely anything (even butthext! yay!).’ He seemed to have a great many names — Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram, were three of them. There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey. And everybody was laughing: and everybody was shouting out, “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi. lzozozozozozoz”

C.S lewis not only went on spring break, but he INVENTED IT!

i bet that he turned towards joe francis down in cancun while they were canning poon and said, “hey let’s film the wild girls taking their tops off! we’ll call it girls gone wild! lzozzoozozoo”

in Prince Caspian, C.S. Lewis wrote:

“p. 152 – “The crowd and the dance round Aslan (for it had become a dance once more in cancun) grew so thick and rapid that Lucy was confused. She never saw where certain other people came from (now grinding on her buttocks lzozlz) who were soon capering among the trees. One was a youth, dressed only in a fawn-skin, with vine-leaves wreathed in his curly hair. His face would have been almost too pretty for a boy’s, if it had not looked so extremely wild. You felt, as Edmund said when he saw him a few days later, ‘There’s a chap who might do anything — absolutely anything (even butthext! yay! or hentai ! lzozlzlz).’ He seemed to have a great many names — Bromios, Bassareus, and the Ram, were three of them (bro rammer, yo bro butthexter, da butthexter master bromio yo yo were some oteh rnamez lzlzoz). There were a lot of girls with him, as wild as he. There was even, unexpectedly, someone on a donkey (i am pretty sure dat was heartiste!! lzozlzoo). And everybody was laughing: and everybody was shouting out, “Euan, euan, eu-oi-oi-oi-oi-oilzo-oizlzozo-lzozl-lzozlz-lzozozozlozoz.” [Emphasis added.]

Note the wild dance, the extremely wild faced youth that is Bromios (otherwise known and Dionysus or Bacchus or bro yo ho), the wild girls (Maenads or girls gone wild or sorrostitutesz), the man on the donkey (Silenus or Heratisetse in the Latin versiosn zlozlzolzo) who is also said to cry “Refreshments!” (which in the context of Dionysus would be wine or anal lube), and the cries of “Euoi!”. What Lewis is describing here is nothing other than a Bacchanalian orgy!”

anyone inetrested in da delcine of da modern churchand why men no longer go to church and the delcine of marriage and all ada divorce in da church need look no futeher than spring-break master grandaddy white knight PUA C.S. Lewis!

in addition to ineventing the girls gone wild franchise, c.s. lewis also inverted was teh ofudning w father of da whight nightzs!! lzozozozol

C.S. Lewis wrote: “A society in which conjugal infidelity is tolerated must always be in the long run a society adverse to women (unless the state and christain church are highjacked by the bankers to empower desouled, buttcocked, bernakifiied womenz to transfer assets from menz to womenz lzoozoz). Women, whatever a few male songs and satires may say to the contrary, are more naturally monogamous than men (C.S. Lewis obviously never read Sperm Wars where he would have learned that women love being fought over not only on the playground, but deep within their cervix–a battlefield where millions of sperm die in da battle of da lotsas cockas, while but one spermz lives); it is a biological necessity (lzozozlz C.S. Lewis speaking of biology is like my dog talking about quantum physics & C.S. Lewis obviously never went on a spring break to Cancun, nor lived in a dorm. hey c.s. lewis traddfuckityface leave da biology talk to real men like da heartsiste!!! stck with writing your spring break mommy porn prince caspian bookz lzozolzoz). Where promiscuity prevails, they will therefore always be more often the victims than the culprits (Wait a second, if a woman accepts a cock in her gina, how is da gina innocent and the cock a criminal? I thought that bearing false witness was unchristian?). Also, domestic happiness is more necessary to them than to us (lzozoozlzozlzzlzll yes back before they were buttcocked by elvis’s pelvis! Fact: 75%-90% of divorces are initiated by women, who are given a financial incentive to do so. also far more men favor marriag than do womenz lzozlzl). And the quality by which they most easily hold a man, their beauty, decreases every year after they have come to maturity, but this does not happen to those qualities of personality—women don’t care twopence about our looks (back when they were trained not to act on their gina and butt tinglezlzozlzozlzoz to lust after undead makeup-wearing vampires in twilight)—by which we hold women (and today men are taught to concentrate on their abs and looks more and more while ignoring tehir souls and da great bookz 4 menz, as Men’s Health and Details scoff at and ignore the Great Books and Classics). Thus in the ruthless war of promiscuity women are at a double disadvantage (C.S. Lewis misspelled “advantage”). They play for higher stakes and are also more likely to lose (C.S. Lewis was spared knowledge of the modern divorce-industrial complex and the abortion industry, in which 50,000,000 unborn have also lost–each and every single one of them sent to death by. a. woman’s. choice.). I have no sympathy with moralists who frown at the increasing crudity of female provacativeness (So you can see you C.S. Lewis was one of the first to scoff at the Godlike, Thundering Morality of Moses and Jesus, and one can see, were Jesus around today, good old Clive Staples would be pounding the nails himself). These signs of desparate competition fill me with pity (and the world with broken families, and fatherless children, who, statistically-speaking, have far higher incidences of mental illnesses and afflictions, which further serve to grow the wealth-transferring, liberty-eroding feminist-fanboy-fiatocracy state, which, as you can see, was spawned in large part by C.S. Lewis’s ignorance of classical literature and female nature and his supreme detestation of classical, exalted, noble commonsense morality).”

lzozlzzooozozozo

da reason c.s. lewis fucktar mistakenly thinksz dat women are cleand a pure innocnet little angles (unlike what the bible which he ignores teachesh zlozoz) is dat for the past 5,000 years or so, women were taught and shamed and exalted and encouraged by the Great Books and World’s Mythologies to not act on their baser natures and pursue every gina and butt tingle.

The dimmer Neoconths and aging manginas thus concluded that women were naturally chaste and good, as that is how they remembered their grandmothers, who were never butthexted, desouled, and bernankified like today’s women are.

Even C.S. Lewis had it wrong about women, and thus never grasped the deeper soul of the Old and New Testaments.

GBFM, CSL was writing in the middle of the last century, before the full depravity of women had become obvious, when men still had some illusions. Abortion was still illegal, as was sodomy.

Also, please check that passage about the frolic. What the ponderous old chap was trying to say, IIRC, was that booze and sex have their place, if we use them as God intended. If I recall, Aslan was there blessing the scene.

Lewis’ sexuality is a puzzle, but he does not appear to have been a homosexual.

I can’t find a copy of Prince Caspian to check, but please read the rest of the passage.

You know, I have to say, this is not an issue in the Black and Latino communities. That women are visually stimulated and blatant objectifiers of the male physique is a no-brainer to them. Their cultures have not yet, and hopefully never will, lose touch of the fact that physical fitness and rhythm (dance) are two traits that play major roles in female sexual attraction. The only people who seem to be surprised are White men. Anyone here who watches black rom-coms will note the objectification of the black male physique to a greater degree than the white male physique is objectified in white rom-coms. There is always at least one scene of shirtless, muscular, sweaty men playing Basketball in every Black rom-com, and its not there for the heterosexual men in the audience, that is for sure. The half naked physically fit muscular male physique and its accompany swagger (rhythm) is showcased throughout those movies. Displays of rhythmic skills in the form of dancing are common.

Watch this video of women movie goers and note their language about Magic Mike from about the halfway mark on.

“He can get a lot of good tips, I can tell ya that much, us ladies will appreciate it.”

“What do you think of this growing trend of male nudity in movies?”

“I’m all for it.” …. “Finally!” … “Us women we always have to put up with it (female nudity) in every movie, and we’re out there and its like ‘ok sure’ but now with the guys there’s finally something for us. I like it!”

“Also, please check that passage about the frolic. What the ponderous old chap was trying to say, IIRC, was that booze and sex have their place, if we use them as God intended. If I recall, Aslan was there blessing the scene.”

Umm, yes Aslan was there blessing the scene. But where in the gospels doth Jesus Christ bless a harem of womenz pursuing a wild boy who will “do anything!” lzozozzozo

Jesus preached not only abstinence, but cleansing the very soul and spirit of any lust!

But perhaps you prefer C.S. Lewis’s beastiality Asssslan version of Christianity, like William Bennett and the modern church and the Weekly Standadth lzozolozozozo.

And no duh C.S. Lewis was ignorant regarding the true nature of women, unlike the GREAT MEN who wrote the BIBLE and the GREAT BOOKS such as MEDEA and HOMER’S ODYSSEY.

I think Lucy says something like, “I would not have enjoyed it if Aslan had not been there”. It does not take too much imagination to see that CSL was saying, in a polite way for an English children’s book of the time, that there is nothing wrong with a lady enjoying a good rogering, if she is somebody’s Mrs.

Have you read “Brideshead Revisited”? It is the English habit of “playing tigers”. Lewis was doing that English thing of reaching for classical imagery, written by more hot-blooded people, when he wanted to advert to the Dionysian. He had about as much idea of a real orgy as an Oxford don of the time would have had. That is, none. It was all in his imagination. There are people who claim he was swiving Mrs Moore for years, but there is no real evidence. He tastefully implied that he eventually had sex with Joy Davidman, who became Mrs Lewis late in their lives. But the chap was pretty much a celibate for long periods of his life.

Lewis could not have seen a future in which women killed millions of their unborn children, largely for convenience, and racked up partner counts by the dozen.

Christ was present at the wedding feast at Cana, at which guests got at least a little buzzed on wine, and no doubt he blessed the fact that the husband would be enjoying his new bride later that night.

you write, “I think Lucy says something like, “I would not have enjoyed it if Aslan had not been there”. It does not take too much imagination to see that CSL was saying, in a polite way for an English children’s book of the time, that there is nothing wrong with a lady enjoying a good rogering, if she is somebody’s Mrs. ”

LUCY IS A LITTLE GIRL! SHE IS A MINOR!!! WHY IS C.S> LEWIS TRYNG TO TELL MINORS ITS OK TO GET ROGERED!!!!!??!?!?!? R U FRIGGN NUTSOS?

WHY DOES C.S. LEWIS HAVE LUCY A LITTLE GIRL WISH FOR JESUS T DISAPPEAR AND F. OFF SO SHE CAN ENJOY A GOOD ROGERING MORE?

HOW SICK R U?

u write “Have you read “Brideshead Revisited”? It is the English habit of “playing tigers”. Lewis was doing that English thing of reaching for classical imagery, written by more hot-blooded people, when he wanted to advert to the Dionysian.”

“advert” to the Dionysian? Why does C.S. Lewis want to corrupt Christianity with orgies involving minors?

u write, “Lewis could not have seen a future in which women killed millions of their unborn children, largely for convenience, and racked up partner counts by the dozen.” well, after promotion orgies for minors and minors getting rogered and minors whishing jesus would disappear so they could enjoy a good rogering in your words, lewis not only foresaw such a morally corrupt future, but he advocated for it!

u write, “Christ was present at the wedding feast at Cana, at which guests got at least a little buzzed on wine, and no doubt he blessed the fact that the husband would be enjoying his new bride later that night.”

maybe, but marriage is VERY DIFFERENT FROM A DIONYSIAN ORGY INCVOLVING CHILDREN HOPING FOR JESUTH TO DISAAPPEAR SO THEY CAN ENJOY THE ROGERING MORE.

seriously dude–you’re kinda sick, lacking a moral sense. how many modern churches do you preach at? you remind me of my old priest who was also into orgies with minors.

That last remark of mine means that if you want to be anonymous, which I assume you do, GBFM, you should be more careful. I am pretty sure I know your real name and a fair bit about you. You have left a trail that is not hard to follow. If you don’t care who knows your real name, OK.

We are basically on the same side, as I would have thought was obvious. So I have no desire to harm your reputation. Another person to whom you have been similarly rude might not be so tolerant.

Great video and analysis. I think Janka does a really good job of holding his ground considering what he’s up against. They’ve clearly done a bait-and-switch by roping him in on “let’s get you teaching guys infield and to talk about your attitudes on life” and then edited the worst possible out of context sections to create a strawman…. then imported a mob of manhaters to cut him down.

How long would a typical woman last under that spotlight? Or beta male?

I think when he realises how much they’ve tried to stitch him up he decidsd to play up the douchebag side. More power to him. I’ve never thought much of Janka before but after seeing him do such a good job of holding his frame, I think he’s got something to him after all.

Funny how the crowd are just jackals. They seem to not care / have no self awareness about the witch hunt they are on. This is precisely the type of people and group dynamics that lead to Auschwitz and gulags. Those prissy little cunts in the audience are the ones who snitch on their neighbours to the secret police. Human nature at its most ugly. Pretty much every advance in political philosophy was to create institutions and cultural mores that stop people like this having the ability to influence the world.

“Marcus”, I seem to remember you popping up previously. Making one bitter little comment. I suspected you of being a female troll. And if you think “provocative” and “holy” have to be in opposition, “Joshua”, you are a donkey.

As for GBFM, I now know who he is. A longtime Internet crank and bore. His remarks on Lewis are rubbish. He has an obsession about anal sex.

The idea that CS Lewis, of all people, helped to usher in the sexual revolution is absolute nonsense. As far as I am concerned, that alone destroys GBFM’s credibility. His inability to defend his bizarre opinion without losing his composure completely is consistent with his being a crank.

Another typical example of how Game is portrayed in the mainstream media:

Considering that mainstream TV has pretty much become a female ghetto, it’s not surprising that it can only make a profit by telling average women what they want to hear. Hence the rampant gynocentrism and gynonormativity everywhere you look.

I think he is expressing his contempt for the women who sleep with him, his belief that what they are doing shameful. And if so, that’s pretty despicable — because he is ACTIVELY trying to get these women to engage in an activity that he views as shameful on their part. He is luring and seducing and PUA-ing them into doing something that he thinks makes them unworthy of respect. He is basically saying, “Hey, sleep with me and then after you do, I’m going to point and laugh.”

The idea that CS Lewis, of all people, helped to usher in the sexual revolution is absolute nonsense.

The real reason that sexual revolution / feminism /etc. happened was because the western world could “afford it”. Productivity had increased so much that the old rules need no longer be enforced. Suppose that economic development had stagnated in the 1940s. None of the aforementioned movements would have made it off the ground. “Leaders” making the movements happen is nonsense, it was just aquiescence of society to the female imperative.

My experience with the so called mental health experts that feed off the divorce industry is that they are usually just taking the path of least resistance. Doctor Phil is no exception. It is much easier to get men to change or take on the burden than it is to get the women to do it so always telling his male clients / television guests to man up helps him avoid having to confront his intransigent female clients who have no interest in compromise or staying in a relationship they are in the process of exiting. Worse, McGraw tends to moralize rather than dig into the evo-psych reasons causing the underlying problems. His White Knighting is squid ink he uses to cover up women’s less flattering behavior which always keeps him in good graces with not only his female clients but his female audience whom he is dependent on for income.

“The ease and facility with which women resort to hamsterizations is scary. If Genghis Khan were a woman, she might have done a good job of convincing other women and beta manboobs that her genocidal rampage “just happened”.

A drum circle for peace would then have ensued, followed by group sympathy hugs.”

Of course its men like Paul Janka & other PUAs & gamers, who are the real victims, as theyre denied what a real woman should be

Having to pick deranged sociopathic sluts, isnt exactly a choice, when these women are brainwashed by socio-acculturation & feminism

Having to pick a woman, who turns illogical, irrational behaviour into a imperative, is hardly a human being, or even an animal, as sluts have no real survival instinct unless cornered …

Regarding C.S. Lewis, I always felt there was something sinister and dark about his writings when I was a child. Later as an adult I did some research on adults who write for children and young people, classic fairy tales, as well as Walt Disney, and yes, very dark, sinister themes are woven into these literatures, cartoons and movies, on purpose. One very common theme is children without adult supervision, where are the parents? BOTH of them? And children who are in adult roles. Its not by mistake.

You can view some of the video documentaries of Lenon Honor who breaks this kind of stuff down, as well as other forms of media manipulation.

As a child (I must have been about twelve or thirteen) I read all seven (is it) of the Narnia books, and all I can remember is that one of the girls wanted to be seventeen (and then remain seventeen forever). There was a wardrobe and a lion called Aslan and a Prince called Caspian. It never occured to me that there was any sub-text either christian or perverted. – and then there was Swallows and Amazons (but I was younger) and I read most of those too – are they familiar in America I wonder? The only books aimed at children that I have read since then are by Michael Ende. My sometime girlfriend introduced me to his books. She only seems to read books for children such as Harry Potter and His Dark Materials. Perhaps she has a sublimated desire for motherhood?

@Opus: why is Paul Janka’s 132 pathetic? It’s some 10-20 times higher than the average male’s (let alone median) partner count, and one girl every two months isn’t bad at all (plus, your assumption that men are expected to start having a sexual life at age of 14 is unrealistic). With focused game and lots of approaches, some can pull a new girl every week, but I completely understand him if he would rather settle into a relationship and occasionally bang a girl on the side.

132 could be a steady life having 4 different girlfriends a year 100% of the time from your teenage years onwards, and cheating on each one at least once. Most men would kill for a fifth of that vaginal stream, let alone half!

I do hope that I find the right man eventually, but I’m not going to settle for the wrong one. I’d rather be single than in an unhappy marriage. I also like sex, I would’ve liked to have sex with Paul if he wasn’t so gross about it and idiotic about women. If he could’ve just been a decent guy then it would’ve happened. At the end of the day, I’m not going to worry or obsess about ‘finding a husband’, and though I wrote some stuff in a blog about it, it doesn’t mean it’s my foremost priority. I’m a comedian and filmmaker, and so long as I fill my life with creative and productive pursuits, I believe that things will work out naturally in time. I’m a human being with needs, humans naturally desire companionship and intimacy – so of course finding a good guy is important on a level! That’s really not news, and it is it worth you writing about and calling me out? I went on Dr. Phil because Paul gave the Dr Phil producers my name as someone they could invite. They offered me a free trip to LA and it was fun to be on the show. This was all TV hoopla and heavily edited. You really shouldn’t take this sillyness so seriously. ALL OF YOU!!!! Get outside and enjoy your days 🙂

Disagree. I checked out her blog and found both interesting and pretty. However, since I’m already married I won’t explore the matter further. But… “some guy, somewhere, someday” will be very happy to marry her someday… if she learns from the Manosphere that she needs to leverage her youth into a good match, rather than postponing it till age 30.. or whatever.. or never..

Heather Fink says: I do hope that I find the right man eventually, but I’m not going to settle for the wrong one. I’d rather be single than in an unhappy marriage. I also like sex, I would’ve liked to have sex with Paul if he wasn’t so gross about it and idiotic about women. If he could’ve just been a decent guy then it would’ve happened

Heather, we are honored that you would grace our blog with your presence.

Marrying the wrong person indeed misery. As for that pickup artist… that stuff DOES work on MANY women… unfortunately. In my single days i was too much of a niceguy to apply it, and I was actually quite appalled to learn that men who intentionally copied jerks did better than those who remained "nice".. which I defiantly insisted on doing. So I'm gratified to hear that it didn't work on you.

But the fact that you would have gone for it if he'd been nicer, is disturbing. Are you really unaware of how pre-marital sexual liasons damage your future marriage? Not just, damage your chances of marrying, but also, each successive PMSL damages the quality of your future marriage relationship.

Thanks van Rooinek – are you Dutch? I’m Dutch too. Anyhow, I appreciate what you are saying there but disagree about pre-marital sex. I believe in sex with love. I also believe that it’s ok to try things and explore and find out for yourself what works, and what works for one person doesn’t work for everyone. Sex is also an important measure of compatibility and chemistry and I’d never marry someone without exploring that first. Marriage is a big important decision and I wouldn’t save ‘finding out’ any surprises AFTER making the big leap. I find it to be a physical manifestation of the emotional connection. – people like sex. it’s not unusual, it’s not slutty, it’s how our brains and bodies are made. shouldn’t be surprising or particularly meaningful for me to say that.

Heather’s comment at 11:53 a.m. confirms what I’ve been saying on this blog for a long time. Just because a woman says she wishes she were married or could find a guy to settle down with, it doesn’t mean that she should have married the men she turned down in her youth. Wanting to get married doesn’t mean that it’s a mistake to turn down the wrong person. I’d wager most single women feel the same way Heather does — yes, they miss companionship and intimacy, but that doesn’t mean it would be worthwhile to marry any man who comes along just because he happens to be a nice guy.

MOST of us would rather be single than married to the wrong person. Just because a woman is single and wishes she weren’t, it doesn’t follow that she’s messed up her life. I tend to assume that single women (and men too) have been making the best possible choices for themselves all along.

Heather, In the post, Dalrock took you to task for dumping on Paul’s spreadsheet. He claims that you are guilty of applying a double standard – i.e. that you are castigating Paul for having such a high partner count, when you yourself have engaged in premarital sex presumably with multiple partners. Can you address this?

How do you distinguish your conduct from Paul’s? Is it the number of partners, and if so, where do you draw the line? Or does it relate to how you treat your partners and what is it about Paul’s treatment that is problematic? Or is it some other factor?

Does your husband nod in agreement while he wipes other men’s semen off you? Since he’s a cuckold and all I assume he simply does whatever he is told. Can HE hold up a sign that says “Matt has a 10 inch dick” and post it please?

You ask of me why (although it was of course slightly tongue-in-cheek on my part) that I described Paul Janka’s partner count as Pathetic, when as you say the average male partner count is so much less.

I do so, because with the looks of a Paul Janka, an above average partner-count is I presume somewhat easier to achieve. Pulling a girl a week (and he, by my calculation, was only pulling a girl every two months) is not that difficult (a brief look through one of my earlier diaries shows that when I was the same age as Janka, that is exactly what I was doing – a girl a week I mean) and I am not in any sense an Alpha – at least I don’t think so.

Paul has been with an enormous amount of women compared to how many men I’ve been with, there’s a big difference! Also, he’s been with hookers and paid for it. Also, HE PUT IT ON A SPREADSHEET! spreadsheets? for sex? that’s not sexy! that’s disturbing and creepy. – quality over quantity guys. sex is much better with someone you actually have intimacy with …

Doomed Harlot: I tend to assume that single women (and men too) have been making the best possible choices for themselves all along.

Having been on the wrong end of a lot of female choices in my dating days… and having had some actually express reget when I got engaged.. I have to say, that a lot of single women are NOT making the best choices. Some of them write lamentorials for the newspapers when they hit 40 and realize that somewhere they missed their chance at marriage and family. One recent article spoke of a guy that she could have married, who wanted to marry her, and whom she now bitterly regrets dumping.

Much of this website is about trying to improve single womens’ (and mens’) choices. If they were making good choices, the pickup artists would be out of business and the traditionalist aspect of the manosphere… including Dalrock’s…. would be unnecessary.

quality over quantity guys. sex is much better with someone you actually have intimacy with …

For women, yes. Many women report that they had a whole lot of sexual adventures in college, which mostly weren’t very satisfying… and they didn’t actually start having orgasms til they had been married for a while. That’s because most women have trouble making a full “surrender” without total trust.

For men, the more sex the better. Which is why religious monogamist blogs push so hard for wives to put out a whole lot more often..

The whole ‘finding the right one’ spiel is a bit overdone. It’s kind of the woman’s version of pedestalizing or oneitis. There is no ‘right one’. God is not going to send down the perfect man (or woman) on a chariot of fire, gift wrapped and ready to go. The good news is, there are hundreds of right ones, it just requires a bit discretion to find one. I don’t think sleeping with all the wrong ones is going to get you all that far. I might be terribly wrong, and if, more power to y’all. But if I am not you may not like the outcome. I would recommend you read the five reasons why a high partner count doesn’t matter: http://www.theuniversityofman.com/blog/top-5-reasons-her-sexual-past-shouldnt-matter-reason-5.html.

Thanks for the links fellas, but I don’t intend to go reading things about sex n marriage. By now I trust my instinct and intellect to guide me. I intend to live my life and let things happen as they happen without overthinking it and obsessing.

You do realize that there is a huge market for pieces about “smart women, foolish choices” in rags like the Daily Male, right? That said, sure, there are women who regret the one they got away. But mostly the state of being single at 40 is not an argument for why a woman should have married the decent guy who proposed 15 years ago. Not all decent men are interchangeable, and I’m surprised you’d want to be considered as such by a potential life partner.

The basic fact is that marriage is weakening as an institution. Women don’t need to get married for social acceptance or economic survival anymore, and as such, they can afford to be choosey. Being choosey sometimes means that you don’t get married at all, and that’s okay. Men don’t need to get married either, and that’s okay too.

I also don’t believe that blogs like this exist out of a deep concern for the wellbeing of women. Men like reading about women’s mid-life regrets because it makes them feel better for having been turned down by women when they were younger.

I also don’t believe that blogs like this exist out of a deep concern for the wellbeing of women.

Ask Dalrock to explain why he started it.

Men like reading about women’s mid-life regrets because it makes them feel better for having been turned down by women when they were younger.

Perhaps in some cases. For me, it’s part of an effort to *MAKE SENSE* of it. I’m not here for schadenfreude. But perhaps others are. The next question is: why do I feel compelled to “make sense” of it, even after being happily married for 10 years? There are 2 reasons. Partly, the mind-f*** of dating as a nice guy, still has shadow pain even after all this time, and hashing out the issues helps. More importantly: I have 3 sons, and I want to spare them my fate.

Trusting your “instinct and intellect to guide” you is the chief reason that men like Paul Janka come into your life. That shimmering “instinct and intellect” is also why you call up men like Janka at 2:00 am for clandestine “meetings”.

The cuck’s premise is flawed as it assumes we are older men. I’m in my mid-twenties, and my personal life is fine, its pure projection and minimization strategy. Women do it all the time by spewing out ‘creepy’ ‘disturbing’ ‘unsexy’ and other nonsense. Women base their entire existence on power-jockeying for status males. It is no surprise that a discussion will ALWAYS be based around power-jockeying when women are involved.

In my defense, I was NOT having a sidebar about my unorthodox, non-monogamous lifestyle. In deference to Dalrock’s wishes, I’m no longer engaging on that subject, and am simply responding to the post and to the other commenters.

VAN ROOINEK SAYS: “Perhaps in some cases. For me, it’s part of an effort to *MAKE SENSE* of it. I’m not here for schadenfreude. But perhaps others are. The next question is: why do I feel compelled to “make sense” of it, even after being happily married for 10 years? There are 2 reasons. Partly, the mind-f*** of dating as a nice guy, still has shadow pain even after all this time, and hashing out the issues helps. More importantly: I have 3 sons, and I want to spare them my fate.

I SAY: I think this is really interesting, Van Rooinek. I guess I just don’t understand the “nice guy” mindset here. Do you think that being “nice” should be good enough to get a date? Would you have been willing to date any “nice girl” who wanted you, even she was not particularly attractive to you? Do you think women are obligated to date or have sex with a man just because he is nice?
I have never understood the attitude that being nice entitles you to something from women.

“I do hope that I find the right man eventually, but I’m not going to settle for the wrong one. I’d rather be single than in an unhappy marriage. “

That’s why 51% of children born to women between the ages of 19-30 are born to single moms.

“I also like sex, I would’ve liked to have sex with Paul if he wasn’t so gross about it and idiotic about women.”

Since Mr. Janka has slept with 132 women and even had you running to him for a 2AM hookup, the facts clearly state he is far from “idiotic about women”.

“If he could’ve just been a decent guy then it would’ve happened. At the end of the day, I’m not going to worry or obsess about ‘finding a husband’, and though I wrote some stuff in a blog about it, it doesn’t mean it’s my foremost priority. I’m a comedian and filmmaker, and so long as I fill my life with creative and productive pursuits, I believe that things will work out naturally in time.”

“I’m a human being with needs, humans naturally desire companionship and intimacy – so of course finding a good guy is important on a level! That’s really not news, and it is it worth you writing about and calling me out? I went on Dr. Phil because Paul gave the Dr Phil producers my name as someone they could invite. They offered me a free trip to LA and it was fun to be on the show. This was all TV hoopla and heavily edited. You really shouldn’t take this sillyness so seriously. ALL OF YOU!!!! Get outside and enjoy your days”

It’s not really you that’s being “called out”. It’s your mindset and perceptions, which you share with innumerable women, that is being placed under scrutiny for the benefit of all parties – yourself among them.

“Would you have been willing to date any “nice girl” who wanted you, even she was not particularly attractive to you?”

I cannot speak for vR but in my case I would at least give her a shot, if I was not already otherwise engaged.

“Do you think women are obligated to date or have sex with a man just because he is nice?
I have never understood the attitude that being nice entitles you to something from women.”

I would consider it less of a feeling of entitlement but rather a complete and total lack of sympathy when things don’t turn out haaapily for her. People are allowed to make their own choices but they better accept the consequences. If a woman plays the game and ends up doing well…there’s not much to say is there? But if things go wrong and she whines and cries about “all the good men” being gone (TM), tough luck, cupcake. Occasionally you run into cases of a good woman being passed over repeatedly. She will have my sympathy. Otherwise, no.

Koevoet,
Giving every nice a person a shot is nice in theory, but not a great idea in practice. When I was a teenager, my father said I should give a shot to any nice guy who asked me out. “Go out with him! What harm can it do?” he said. “Don’t turn up your nose at nice guys.” So I didn’t. For a few years, I went out with any nice guy who asked me. It took me a long time to figure out that giving nice guys a shot was tying me up in knots.

First, you can usually tell early on, even before you go out, when you aren’t going to be attracted to someone. Going out with the person and THEN rejecting them only increases that person’s pain because the rejection more personal after you’ve had a nice dinner together.

Second, it’s a lot harder to extricate yourself from the situation once you’ve given the guy his shot. Now his hopes are up and he’s going to keep trying! And he may be pissed off because now he feels you “led him on.” A lot of nice guys turn out not to be nice at all once they feel rejected.

Third, you may not have time or energy to date everyone who asks you. For you, as a man, this is not so much an issue, because women don’t initiate as much. But if you are a moderately attractive woman and get asked out a lot, you could be spending time you need to be studying or doing other things, dating people you know already aren’t attractive to you.

DH: I guess I just don’t understand the “nice guy” mindset here…. I have never understood the attitude that being nice entitles you to something from women.

That attitude does not exist And the fact that you would pose this question, tells me that you have NO understanding whatsoever, as to what is going on here. So let me explain it to you simply.

It is not about unattractive guys assuming that niceness can overcome lack of attraction. (That’s projection — only women…, rather, a subset of women… believe that. NO men do.)

It is not about “entitlement”. (That may be an aspect of female projection too…?)

This is about normal guys who have a lot going for them, physically, educationally, careerwise, etc, and who have (on the advice of parents, church, female “friends”, etc), treated women with kindness, respect, and consideration….. and are rejected BECAUSE OF that kindness, respect, and consideration! This is maddening! Especially when women will swear til they are blue in the face, that the “nice guy” is what they want.

Look at it this way: Suppose you’re an attractive young woman. You’ve got a pretty face, clear skin, hourglass figure, good overall health, fitness, and appearance, and you dress appealingly. You’ve got a good education, a lot of outisde interests, and a good job. You have a stable personality, no addictions or credit-card debts or other “drags” on your life. You’re friendly, easy to talk to, and even-tempered. And you’re honest and trustworthy to a fault. And you’ve followed all the advice your family, friends, and church have given you, as to how to find a good man…..

… and every man you meet… supposedly good men…. turns you down and chases meth-addicted hookers instead. Only to get burned over and over. Yet they don’t come knocking on YOUR door for dates, EVER. But, they always tell you how sexy you are, what a great person you are, and how you’d be a great wife and mother for *somebody someday*.

Liking sushi means you like sushi, not ONLY pickled radish and tofu rolls. Liking that makes you a vegan, not a girl who likes sushi. Similarly liking sex means you don’t come up with lame excuses to avoid it… and then swear up and down how much you like it.

I would feel that I was hanging around in the wrong circles. Personally, I don’t know anyone who dated or married the male equivalent of a meth-addicted hooker. Also, plenty of kind and considerate men (including you apparently) manage to find wives and girlfriends.

I can’t assess what was happening with you because I wasn’t there. One possibility: You overestimated your own attractiveness in terms of looks and personality. No shame in that. It’s hard to be objective about those things.

Another possibility: You were going for women who were out of your league. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes the gorgeous girl falls in love with someone who is not the big man on campus, but still . . .

A third possibility: Your idea of kindness and consideration may have manifested itself in a way that seemed condescending or dehumanizing. The PUAs, for example, are right that women don’t really like being placed on a pedestal or having their ass kissed. Also, many women don’t care for ostentatious displays of chivalry. It can also be fairly obvious when a man is being nice with the expectation that his niceness will earn him some kind of reward from a woman.

I dated one. Ex hooker… still struggling with meth… met her at bible study. First woman in 5 years that paid attention to me..

One possibility: You overestimated your own attractiveness in terms of looks and personality. You were going for women who were out of your league

Welll… women were the ones who told me how great looking I was. And of course I was beseiged by gays from age 12-30 ish (despite not having the slightest interest in homosexuality)… and they supposedly have good taste. I also got a number of seducfion attempts from women…. but I wanted to get married in church, not sleep around.. So I’m not ugly.

That said, when my income skyrocketed in my mid 30s, dating suddenly became much easier.

Your idea of kindness and consideration may have manifested itself in a way that seemed condescending or dehumanizing.

Hmmm, Van Rooinek, again I wasn’t there, so I can’t assess the situation. But it sounds like women didn’t reject you because you were nice. Some of them wanted to sleep with you! It just happened what they wanted (sex) wasn’t what you wanted (marriage).

A couple other thoughts: (1) Old-fashioned chivalry isn’t the same thing as kindness and consideration. Old-fashioned chivalry usually refers to a set of ritualized social gestures, such as opening car doors, paying on dates, letting women go first, helping them with their coats. Chivalry seems not to correlate to either niceness or lack thereof. Some door-holders are jerks, and I’ve met very sweet men who go first through the door and always split the check. Chivalry is more something that makes the man comfortable because that’s how he was raised, although certainly there are plenty of women who still expect it.

(2) However, you were hanging out in church circles, so I’m guessing your crowd may have been somewhat conservative. In that case, chivalrous manners were likely appreciated among the women you knew. However, a more conservative crowd means perhaps that women were more likely to be looking for “provider” types. That’s why you had more success when you were older and more established financially. No mystery there.

I’ve actually observed a situation where a normally nice guy steped out of characer and was a jerk for a short time. That was all it took, to garner a much higher level of interest. Losing his temper and mouthing off for a few minutes, did NOT make him taller, handsomer, or richer! But it did gain female attention, very dramatically.

Some of them wanted to sleep with you!

Just remembered…. One night… fall 1997… I was at the Windsail Restaurant in Malibu with some friends. I was just coming off a pretty bad heartbreak and just needed to get out and blow off some stem. Anyway… an older couple invited me over to talk to me…

…and I think that you, DH, are in a particular position to guess what they wanted… I said “no”.

van Rooinek says:
July 30, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“Look at it this way: Suppose you’re an attractive young woman. You’ve got a pretty face, clear skin, hourglass figure, good overall health, fitness, and appearance, and you dress appealingly. You’ve got a good education, a lot of outisde interests, and a good job. You have a stable personality, no addictions or credit-card debts or other “drags” on your life. You’re friendly, easy to talk to, and even-tempered. And you’re honest and trustworthy to a fault. And you’ve followed all the advice your family, friends, and church have given you, as to how to find a good man…..

… and every man you meet… supposedly good men…. turns you down and chases meth-addicted hookers instead. Only to get burned over and over. Yet they don’t come knocking on YOUR door for dates, EVER. But, they always tell you how sexy you are, what a great person you are, and how you’d be a great wife and mother for *somebody someday*.”

Knowing you were talking about DH made this the funiest comment of all time.

So, you found a bad photo of me. Maybe I look better in person? Maybe not. Maybe you think I look average, or even ugly.

Who cares? If someone on the internet thinks I look bad – does it matter? Does it matter if I like or don’t like a photo of your face either?

It’s ok if you think I’m unattractive. I don’t know you and I’m not trying to be attractive for you.
It’s also ok you think my standup act on youtube is bad. I like it! I’m happy with it.

You’re saying things you couldn’t say to me to my face. What is it about the internet that gives you license to be judgmental and mean? Is that healthy? It’s probably not healthy for you. There’s probably a lot of things you could be doing to make you feel happier and better.

Seriously, what’s creepy is people obsessing about NONSENSE when there’s more important and much more interesting things to write and think about. For your own SANITY people – LET THIS GO and all topics like this.

I worry about you people out there, acting all crazy on the internet, does it affect how you act in the real world and how you treat people?

—– as for generalizations about nice guys and dating and whether or not to sleep with people, it’s all sounding very convoluted … treat people well, and strive for good feelings with someone that are mutual. the stuff you guys are saying about something as personal as someone’s dating life are extremely general and not terribly accurate. every woman and man are different and it works out when it works out. ——

EW! It seems pretty inappropriate for that couple to approach you in that way, in a public place with no indication or reason to think that you would entertain such a thing. But, I believe you when you say that you are good looking!

I can’t argue with your anecdote about your friend who stepped out of character into being a jerk, because I wasn’t there.

But I will say that women want RELATIONSHIPS. I’ve dated a few “nice guys” and many of them seem to think that the key to a woman’s heart is constant deference. In reality, I would rather have a man joke around with me, or tell me if he thinks I’m wrong about something, than squelch his real personality in order to try to ingratiate himself. I’m not saying that’s what you were doing, but I’ve seen it. Sometimes things like “chivalry” for example, can get in the way of a man actually relating to a woman. Some of these men who are characterized as “jerks” are really just relating to women like equals.

But again, it’s hard to talk about because we aren’t there to see each other’s experiences. I am glad that you were ultimately able to succeed in finding a life partner. And I’m sorry that some of your youthful experiences were unpleasant.

Van Rooinek, EW! It seems pretty inappropriate for that couple to approach you in that way, in a public place with no indication or reason to think that you would entertain such a thing…

Yeah… and the wife was actually quite good looking. Messes with your head, to be offered that… in the midst of a bad heartbreak from yet another church girl. It was a real mindbender. If I hadn’t been on the edge of tears that night I might have been tempted. But as things were, it was just a poignant counterpoint to the rejection I was getting from the women I was actually interested. I wanted my own wife, not someone else’s… sheesh…

For all my complaining.. I have to add.. in the end it all worked out. I found a Christian wife (with the help of the internet!), got married, and lost my virginity… at age 38. Better late than never. 10 years and 3 kids later, all is well. I just wish it hadn’t taken so long or hurt so much to get there.

I get it hun. You called me creepy, a couple other people creepy, I understand. This is your default way of trying to silence men. Most of us have dealt with it in their personal lives and brush it off as the last desperate gasp of an ugly girl. Incidentally, I don’t think you’re ugly on the outside, a little lost, a little hurt, but you aren’t ugly on the outside sweetie.

You probably don’t understand it, but the gender war has changed direction. Its no longer the legions of pissed off feminists, the slut walk was the last gasp of the privileged white female. the backlash has happened, just as we planned it. We never expected the gentile women to gobble up feminism like they did, it was supposed to be directed at the other undesirables, jews, italians, blacks.

But no matter, it is only half of the equation, phase two will drive the white male to the height of hate for his women just as the nadir occurs on the other side, we estimated sometime around 2020, within a two year deviation. Once the idea grows, it will spread like a cancer: White women are your enemy.

Wow, Van Rooinek, what a story! That must have been worrisome and heartbreaking to wonder if you would ever find that kind of happiness. But kudos to you for doing it on your terms, rather than giving in to temptation to lose your viriginity sooner in an easier way.

The creepy comment has NOTHING to do with maleness or femaleness – creepiness is not exclusive to males! I said creepy cause it was getting weirdly personal, and the hateful comments were coming on – you are talking to me like you know me, I’m certainly not doing that to you. People insulting you who don’t know you, dissecting you who don’t know – is creepy. I find celeb magazines creepy too for the record. This has NOTHING to do with gender.

Heather…. the best thing to do is to simply stop responding to that sort of posting. No law requires you to answer him. There’s much better stuff here at Dalrock’s, go check out the archives.

I suggest also, that you use an alternate identity. NOT A GOOD THING if people know who you really are, especially at a place like this.

YBM…. dude, chill. You’re right, girls are rarely called creepy. But not quite never. But can you give Heather a break without accusing me of “white knighting”? I mean, really, we’re supposed to be winning people over, not making them hate us.

OK, I won’t accuse you of white knighting. I will simply accuse you of being stupid. Do not quote this post. My goals are not to win anyone over. No mind is changed from debate on the internet. An open mind will convince itself, all I will do it provide the tools.

Incidentally aren’t you that HBD guy who used one of my quotes to imply black people did not have legitimate grievances? Don’t bother replying to that either.

the backlash has happened, just as we planned it. We never expected the gentile women to gobble up feminism like they did, it was supposed to be directed at the other undesirables, jews, italians, blacks.

But no matter, it is only half of the equation, phase two will drive the white male to the height of hate for his women just as the nadir occurs on the other side, we estimated sometime around 2020, within a two year deviation. Once the idea grows, it will spread like a cancer: White women are your enemy.

We are pleased with the results thus far.

Who are “we?” Just as you planned it….but you never expected them to “gobble it up?”

Alrighty folks, I’m out. The posting of my photo and video I thought were unhealthy to leave alone without saying something, just in case some young impressionable person reads those comments and thinks it’s ok to behave like that, whether via internet or in person. I also think anonymity can be one of the worst things in the internet as far as the kind of things people say, and then read.

goodbye. Out of interest I looked at your blog. If you are interested in film-making and feel you are funny a good exercise that might get you some mild celebrity would be to do deconstruction/film reviews on youtube in the way people like ‘redlettermedia’ does.

Incidentally aren’t you that HBD guy who used one of my quotes to imply black people did not have legitimate grievances?

No. You read WAY more into my post than I actually said. I made no reference whatsoever to HBD, and I am not an HBD guy. I’ve explained this to you before but for some reason you missed it — or chose to disregard it.

It is interesting how the guy in the link you posted seems to think that “confident” is the opposite of “nice.”. Yeah, being confident, playing a little hard to get, having your own interests, and being your own man are very attractive qualities. Comfidence is the key, not being a jerk. Confidence works for both sexes by the way.

That last remark of mine means that if you want to be anonymous, which I assume you do, GBFM, you should be more careful. I am pretty sure I know your real name and a fair bit about you. You have left a trail that is not hard to follow. If you don’t care who knows your real name, OK.

that bit of passive-aggressive manginism exposes the truth of your soul, collard

he’d better be careful of “somone” exposing his identity b/c he disagreed with YOU?!

lol

you are brimming with spite, envy, jealousy, and the petty, backstabbing revenge usually found only in females

GBFM knows Christ far better than you, but instead of learning from him, you had to use whatever weapon came immediately to mind, in the attempt to destroy him — all to curry the opinions of online people you dont even know!

that is the sorriest, weakest, most cowardly shit i’ve ever read from someone who claims to support “men” . . . much less to emulate Christ, who is not only all God, he is all MAN

youre absolute poison to masculinity, collard, a woman-groveller of the first order, and the problem is not GBFM or anybody else, it is you

this place is becoming a snake pit and that is exactly what happens when men dont back each other up, and become much more interested in page-hits and popularity and primping than in the truth, or growing in Christ

dh: “Do you think women are obligated to date or have sex with a man just because he is nice?
I have never understood the attitude that being nice entitles you to something from women.”

koevoet: “I would consider it less of a feeling of entitlement but rather a complete and total lack of sympathy when things don’t turn out haaapily for her. People are allowed to make their own choices but they better accept the consequences.”

Come on man, even I can’t agree with this. “Accept consequence” for turning a date with you down? We are not owed dates. We can’t force attraction.

“We never expected the gentile women to gobble up feminism like they did, it was supposed to be directed at the other undesirables, jews, italians, blacks.”

– What do you mean by this? Maybe you typed in a hurry but can you expand on this?

“But no matter, it is only half of the equation, phase two will drive the white male to the height of hate for his women just as the nadir occurs on the other side, we estimated sometime around 2020, within a two year deviation.”

– What is phase two? I just don’t see the manosphere ideas getting mainstream acceptance until sometime in the future the when it is the females that decide that they want “traditional gender roles” back. That of course means that things will only get worse for men. With such widespread injustice, if men were gonna start hating their women it would have happened already; no? I see a few of my male peers swearing off marriage but that seems to be the extent of the revolt. So what is this backlash you speak of?

“We never expected the gentile women to gobble up feminism like they did, it was supposed to be directed at the other undesirables, jews, italians, blacks.”

– What do you mean by this? Maybe you typed in a hurry but can you expand on this?”

There was a concerted effort to get black men and women to hate each other during slavery. It was part of the complete break down of the human spirit that was deemed necessary to make a good slave. Maybe that’s what YBM was referring to? That was long before feminism, but the effects are still evident today. And read the Moyihan Report.

“Prostitution is legal here in Australia, in my state at least. What is preventing that in America? I mean, I don’t approve morally, but I am just puzzled.”

Tell me about. Same deal with marijuana. Its ridiculous whats illegal in the “land of the free”.

Government control merely pushes desire for the prohibited item underground.

Australians get legal prostitues; Americans get legal guns. Ponder that for a minute.

Not being a supporter of modern government or democracy, I would rather the individual had the right to consume either product. Of the two, I do wish Australians had liberal access to guns, rather than prostitutes. Dare I say, once the sex bots arrive, maybe the prostitutes will experience declining trade? Perhaps they’ll campaigning to make them a prohibited import . . . nothing much would surprise me.

I keep saying this, but nobody believes me. Australia is not a gun culture. Apart from farmers and professional fishermen, who need guns in their daily work, and a few sporting shooters, nobody is interested in guns. I can remember when even the cops didn’t have guns.

Yes, I saw the Heartiste thing. I was happy with what he did with my remarks.

David, Australia doesn’t love guns??? I saw guns on Crocodile Dundee. I thought that was a documentary?

I’m joking, if it wasn’t apparent. From what I have been reading, guns are easier to get in NZ than in Oz. Do New Zealanders use them more often or is just that they didn’t have that Tasmanian shooting that you guys did?

DHVan Rooinek,
It is interesting how the guy in the link you posted seems to think that “confident” is the opposite of “nice.”. Yeah, being confident, playing a little hard to get, having your own interests, and being your own man are very attractive qualities. Comfidence is the key, not being a jerk. Confidence works for both sexes by the way.

Let’s review: a 40+ year old woman, who has never dated women the way men date women, claims to know more about how to attract women than men do. Specifically, claiming to more about “how to date 20-something women” than a man who dates 20-something women does. And this statement is made after reading an article in which women feed bad advice to a man.

DH
van Rooinek’s personal narrative is an extreme example of a very common story that many, many men can tell. You probably know some men who have gone through that, but you don’t know that you know them.

HRP4Y – koevoet: “I would consider it less of a feeling of entitlement but rather a complete and total lack of sympathy when things don’t turn out haaapily for her. People are allowed to make their own choices but they better accept the consequences.”

“Come on man, even I can’t agree with this. “Accept consequence” for turning a date with you down? We are not owed dates. We can’t force attraction.”

Dalrock, how do you post images? I might have to draw a picture.

HRP4Y, What is there not to agree with? I know we are not owed dates. I have agreed with this repeatedly. You even quote me saying “I would consider it less a feeling of entitlement”. Yes, she must accept the consequences for her own actions. This is standard adult world stuff. The consequences of turning down a good guy are just that, not having that good guy. The consequences for choosing a rotten bastard tend to be that she is stuck with a rotten bastard. What is so hard about this? Good guys are not owed dates. It is their job to attract a woman. Women are not owed a good man. It is their job to choose a good man. How many articles have you read about women complaining that there are no good guys left? That is complete and utter bullshit. Rather than complaining about good men not existing they should bemoan their lack of good decision making. Women hold the power to fix this problem in their lives and if they refuse to do so, I do not sympathize with self inflicted personal problems.

The point I was really making is that I am not sure we are all talking about the same thing when we talk about being “nice” versus being “a jerk.” For example, the author of the piece Van Rooinek linked assumes “confidence” (as well as “aloofness”, having one’s own interests, etc.) is the opposite of “nice.” Van Rooinek seems to equate “kindness and consideration” with “old fashioned chivalry.”

So when we are talking about “nice” versus “not nice,” we’re clearly not all talking about the same thing.

DH: So when we are talking about “nice” versus “not nice,” we’re clearly not all talking about the same thing.

When I say “nice”, I mean it in the ETHICAL sense — kindness, consideration, respect, politeness, etc. — not the sappy sense. I happen to believe that it is our moral obligation to behave that way in most circumstances. Once in a rare while it may be morally necessary to step outside and “kick over the moneychangers’ tables”…. but situations where violent action (or even just firm verbal confrontation) is the right thing to do, are relatively rare. So if that type of bold, decisive action is what gets women off, they’ll see a lot more out-of-control, wild manhood from the bad guys than the good guys.

An analogy can be made with sexual display. A girl with a slutty outfit catches the eye of a man — even the eye of a good man — faster than a modestly dressed woman of equal physique. Yet most good women would consider modesty to be a moral obligation, even though it may be a romantic disadvantage.

Here’s a Red Pill 4 Ya!: There was a concerted effort to get black men and women to hate each other during slavery. It was part of the complete break down of the human spirit that was deemed necessary to make a good slave. .. That was long before feminism, but the effects are still evident today. And read the Moyihan Report.

If this is the case, then it’s hard to account for the historical record, which indicates that one of the first things blacks did, after my Republican forefathers destroyed slavery, was to get LEGALLY MARRIED in droves. Haviing been denied legal marriage as slaves, and having sometimes suffered forced family breakups in slavery with no legal recourse, newly-freed blacks considered legally recognized marriages to be a PRECIOUS thing, one of the most important aspects of freedom, something to be obtained at all costs.

From what I’ve read, the black marriage rate was somewhat higher than the white marriage rate, for many, many generations after slavery. Until the welfare state, the divorce revolution, and feminism, created the perfect storm to destroy the black family…. with predictable results.

That helps me understand what you are getting at. It sounds like you’re saying that women are attracted by displays of confrontational machismo, whether verbal or physical, and tend to be turned off by kindness, consideration, and respect. I know I’ll be accused of hamsterization (a non-argument that is kind of like the Freudian non-argument, “You’re just in denial!”), but my personal observation is that there IS a certain kind of woman who finds machismo hot. It’s far from a universal though. And it doesn’t follow that women who find macho men hot also want those macho men to treat them like crap.

I think the main thing women like is confidence. Confidence is sexy. Confidence correlates with machismo but can exist independent of it. I’d be willing to bet that PUAs do better with women because having a “system” they believe in makes them more confident. Also there’s a bit of a numbers game involved too.

DH: It sounds like you’re saying that women are attracted by displays of confrontational machismo, whether verbal or physical, and tend to be turned off by kindness, consideration, and respect.

Yes, exactly.

my personal observation is that there IS a certain kind of woman who finds machismo hot. It’s far from a universal though.

Maybe it isn’t universal but it’s common enough that it sometimes *seems* universal. And all too often women who bitterly insist that they just want “kindness, consideration, and respect”, fall right into the arms of the badboys…. even if the good guy is taller, handsomer, and makes more money, so you can’t explain it away by “shallowness”.

And it doesn’t follow that women who find macho men hot also want those macho men to treat them like crap.

No, it doesn’t. The problem is, when women say how they want to be treated — “kindness, consideration, and respect” — a decent guy tends to assume, “if I act that way, I will be attractive”. In other words, he deduces a cause and effect relationship.

In truth, what the woman generally REALLY means — though she doesn’t realize it — is that she wants “kindness, consideration, and respect”, from that subset of men she already attracted to, for other reasons. Acting that way doesn’t create attraction…

You would do well to learn more about game, if only to make more coherent arguments about it in this sphere. You are assuming game doesn’t explain female sexuality without ever having studied it.

One thing women tend to get stuck on is attraction vs comfort. Alpha traits generate attraction, beta traits generate comfort. Women want both for a relationship, but the comfort won’t matter if the attraction isn’t there. Men who generate attraction without comfort get laid. Men who generate comfort without attraction are called “creepy” at worst and generate LJBF responses at best. When husbands generate comfort but not attraction they are told “I love you but I’m not in love with you.” just before being slapped with a frivolous divorce and being made to “pay”.

When women give men dating/romantic advice, they almost invariably imagine the alpha they are attracted to and then think of what they wish he would do. This is why women almost always respond with disastrous comfort generating advice to men who are long on comfort and short on attraction generation.

Confidence does not mean rudeness. Genuinely confident people are happy and kind. Genuine confidence comes from having achieved one’s goals, having something to be confident about, like a talent or a skill. It cannot be successfully imitated.

Something I see parents doing is instilling confidence in their children without training them in a skill set in which they could take confidence, pride. This has been the norm for at least the past 3 decades which means the so called “confident” men we are talking about here, were raised in such a fashion.

The latest exchange with DH gives rise to a rant that I’ve been feeling for quite a while.

It is really very frustrating to come to the ‘sphere and have to reiterate the same basic principles time and time again. We men fall victim again and again to the same old behaviors: comfort a crying woman. Show her your provider bona fides. Bare your soul to her. Propose to her on bended knee with a $5000 rock. Do whatever she says, give her whatever she wants. Women are so complex and we’ll never figure them out. When your cock no longer works, be a submissive cuckold and let her have sex with whomever she wants so she doesn’t send you down the divorce court razor blade slide.

Women aren’t immune from it either, as DH shows. They think men can have sex like they can. Oh, it’s just as easy for a man to get sex as for a woman. (No, it’s only that easy for the top men, i.e., the only men you women can see.) Because of the apex fallacy they think traits like loyalty, fidelity, industry, conscientiousness, wealth and provider abilities are attractive. (No. These traits are DESIRABLE. They are not attractive. There is a difference.) Most women have no idea what they are doing to their men, to their husbands, their sons, their nephews, or their society.

I was thinking about Dalrock’s quote on the “Feral females in the news” thread. Paraphrasing, it was “something terrible has occurred”. We can only manage the damage in our own lives and help others do the same. Some men will have to go without wives.

Most of this society has absolutely no idea what is happening on the ground. Uncontrolled female hypergamy and liberal divorce laws are absolutely ripping this country apart at the seams. The mass of men are Roissy-style classic betas. They’re not PUAs and never will be. They have no chance, none at all, in this war zone of an SMP. They have rightly concluded they probably will never get married. There are children who will never know an intact home, never know what it’s like to have a dad and a mom, never know what it’s like to go to bed knowing that mom and dad will be there when you wake up. Their lives are chaos from morning to night. There are men living with crushing child support and alimony obligations while their exes party it up on a schlub ex husband’s paycheck. Meanwhile, he lives in a crappy apartment and has nothing to offer a possible second wife. He has no hope of any kind of happiness other than the potential for a relatinoship with his children as they age. There are millions on millions of women who passed up perfectly good and honorable men in favor of a cad pump and dump, and did it numerous times. These women have destroyed ttheir pair bonding abilities; sold their birthrights for a bowl of warmed over porridge. Then they wail incessantly about “where are all the good men;”, write feature-length articles for national magazines about it.

This i s a tragedy of absolutely epic proportions. It is destroying our culture, destroying our society, and chewing up individual men and women.

Women, if you care about your sons leading happy lives, DO SOMETHING about it.

If you care about your daughters having good men to protect them, DO SOMETHING about it.

If you care about your husbands, DO SOMETHING about it.

Badger posted somewhere that he was reaching the conclusion that the older he got, the less likely he felt it was that any one woman would share his life for the rest of his life (or something like that). I detected more than a little lament in his tone. And he’s right to lament it. More and more good men like him are giving up on marriage, mostly out of necessity.

VAN ROOINEK SAYS: “No, it doesn’t. The problem is, when women say how they want to be treated — ‘kindness, consideration, and respect’ — a decent guy tends to assume, ‘if I act that way, I will be attractive’. In other words, he deduces a cause and effect relationship.

In truth, what the woman generally REALLY means — though she doesn’t realize it — is that she wants ‘kindness, consideration, and respect’, from that subset of men she already attracted to, for other reasons. Acting that way doesn’t create attraction… ”

I actually think this is quite right. The only part I would quibble with is whether women “don’t realize” that other things besides “kindness, consideration, and respect,” go into attraction. I think most women would say that, of course, there has to be attraction too. Women are saying they want “kindness, consideration, and respect,” but it doesn’t follow from that that “kindness, consideration, and respect” are enough by themselves.

The problem is that men are generally the initiators, and that is a difficult and frustrating position to be in. It can feel vulnerable and nervewracking to approach attractive women, and it can feel painful and humiliating to be rejected. Game (which I have read a bit about) helps men to overcome those negative feelings by coming up with an ego-saving explanation for why rejection happens (“I’m too nice and ethical”) and by projecting the fault for the rejection onto the women who caused the pain and humiliation (“They are craven animals who choose jerks.”) It builds confidence in this way and also by giving men the sense of security of having a “system” for success. This confidence in turn attracts female attention, and also gives men the gumption to approach many more women, some of whom are bound to reciprocate the man’s interest.

Van Rooinek, I don’t know your situation, of course, but it sounds like you really wanted to find the right person to marry and settle down with, rather than just having sex. As such, you didn’t play the “numbers” game as a young man, and suffered some misfortune in that the select women you hoped would want to marry you either were uninterested in marriage or did not want to marry you. It sounds like your kindness and consideration did not disqualify you from having women want you in bed, because you mentioned being the object of women’s attempts to seduce you. I suspect your heartbreak and longer-than-usual virginity was due to a combination of your Christian commitment to virginity until marriage, your choice to approach fewer men rather than playing a wide field, and the misfortune of falling in love with a woman or women who didn’t want the same things as you or who were not attracted to you.

DHGame (which I have read a bit about) helps men to overcome those negative feelings by coming up with an ego-saving explanation for why rejection happens (“I’m too nice and ethical”) and by projecting the fault for the rejection onto the women who caused the pain and humiliation (“They are craven animals who choose jerks.”)

Obviously you’ve not read nearly enough about Game. This text is ridiculous.
Game has nothing to do with ego-saving per se, it has nothing to do with projecting fault onto anyone. This text is closer to something a butthurt Beta would write somewhere in the second stage of unplugging / putting on the glasses.

My suggestion: read more on Game and comment less. You do not know what you are writing about.

Dalrock: One thing women tend to get stuck on is attraction vs comfort….When women give men dating/romantic advice, they almost invariably imagine the alpha they are attracted to and then think of what they wish he would do. This is why women almost always respond with disastrous comfort generating advice to men who are long on comfort and short on attraction generation.

I’ve said much the same thing, in slightly different terms:

(a) Most romantic advice men get from parents, church, and female friends, involves improving your relational Compatibility — spiritual growth, communication skills, developing various interests, etc. However…
(b) Attraction is not Compatibility!
(c) All the Compatibility in the world, will never get you a relationship, without Attraction!

Indeed, a super-compatible guy with no attraction, is the perfect “friend” for a girl. But from the guy’s perspective, they’re perfectly compatible and… why can’t she see it, too? Hence he beta orbits till kingdom come, thinking she’ll one day see what a perfect match they are, and perhaps even writes a bitter song about it:

I am everything you want
I am everything you need
I am everything inside of you
That you wish you could be
I say all the right things
At exactly the right time
But I mean nothing to you and I don’t know why
– Vertical Horizon, “Everything You Want”

Back to point (c) — “All the Compatibility in the world, will never get you a relationship, without Attraction!” — It’s interesting that women rarely make this mistake for themselves. They exercise, dress attractively, get their hair done, use cosmetics, etc, because they KNOW that they have to attract a man… that compatiblity by itself will get them nowhere. Yet somehow when they give advice to men, most of them leave that part out.

Van Rooinek did exactly what he was told to do by yentas bitching like DH. He was kind and caring. He did not expect sex or try to take it by force. All he actually asked for was a similar kindness in rejection if the woman he approached didn’t want his attention; and not to be cruelly rejected and humiliated for asking a woman out. This is a pain all men suffer and the way DH flippantly discards his suffering as he either being too ugly, too fucking kind, not confident, not this or that, is disgusting. A man could be the ugliest human being who ever lived, that shouldn’t allow a women to reject him in a manner that wants to make him put a gun to his head.

If women want to be approached by men, then likewise they accept that they will be approached by men who are not to their liking, that’s fine, no complaints. They can then just politely say, ‘no thank you’ and be on there way. If a man gets angry, that’s a different story but that is certainly not what VR meant in any way, shape or form. A kind and honest rejection is actually all men have ever asked for.

I’m glad VR found happiness and a proper wife, not a harlot. He is a Christian and did right by his beliefs, which is a million times more than one can say of doomed slut tart. No man needs to play a ‘numbers game’, unless they are actually after sex in a non-committed relationship. A Christian man has to play a different kind of game entirely, not based in numbers but the quality of the women he is after.

me:
(a) Most romantic advice men get from parents, church, and female friends, involves improving your relational Compatibility — spiritual growth, communication skills, developing various interests, etc. However…
(b) Attraction is not Compatibility!
(c) All the Compatibility in the world, will never get you a relationship, without Attraction!

We can rewrite this in industrial terms thus:

(a) Most economic advice men in STEM majors, involves improving your Product Engineering — effectiveness, durability, low cost, ease of use, safety, etc. However…
(b) Marketing is not Product Engineering!
(c) All the Product Engineering in the world, will never get you the First Sale, without Marketing!

That said…. good Product Engineering makes for brand loyalty. Jerk companies who only want to make one sale, can focus solely on Marketing. But if you want the customer for 50 years, you need to engineer the product well.

AND… sometimes… you’ll do a bit of continuing Marketing to remind the customer of your value, so she won’t be tempted to try out your competitors.

It was part of the complete break down of the human spirit that was deemed necessary to make a good slave. .. That was long before feminism, but the effects are still evident today. And read the Moyihan Report.
———————————

If this is the case, then it’s hard to account for the historical record, which indicates that one of the first things blacks did, after my Republican forefathers destroyed slavery, was to get LEGALLY MARRIED in droves. Haviing been denied legal marriage as slaves, and having sometimes suffered forced family breakups in slavery with no legal recourse, newly-freed blacks considered legally recognized marriages to be a PRECIOUS thing, one of the most important aspects of freedom, something to be obtained at all costs.

From what I’ve read, the black marriage rate was somewhat higher than the white marriage rate, for many, many generations after slavery. Until the welfare state, the divorce revolution, and feminism, created the perfect storm to destroy the black family…. with predictable results.
————————————————————————–
Rooinek is correct, and Moynihan made no cause and effect connection. Its not surprising to see the low hanging fruit of blaming white males exploited even if its 150 years ago.

And unless the guy is really good at reading a woman’s nonverbal signals — a skill most men don’t develop until they’ve had significant sexual experience — he has NO WAY of knowing which category he falls into, before making the approach.

I don’t see where I implied that VR was ugly or lacking confidence or unkind. You seem to be reading nastiness into my comments because that’s what you expect to find. But it’s not there. I do think that things like looks and confidence matter in creating attraction, but I specifically said that I don’t know VR’s situation but from what he said there are likely other factors at work in his case. Didn’t imply there is anything wrong with him.

I make an issue of that because you seem to think that women are routinely cruel in their rejection of men, who only want a “kind and honest” rejection. But I feeling that you would read nastiness into ANY rejection. I think some men’s pain (wanting to put a gun to your own head) is a major source of their hostility towards women.

“Kind and honest” is a hard combination. There is really no easy way to say, “I don’t want to date you,” without hurting his feelings. I always found the “honest” part very hard, because “honest” always feels unkind. So you make up excuses and then the man feels encouraged to try to overcome those excuses and you’ve made the situation worst. As a woman, it feels like a fine line to walk, and if you fall off the line, you wind up “leading him on,” or “being a bitch.” No one teaches you how to give a graceful rejection.

Honesty is the best policy. If you lie, the man will probably find out and then actually have a reason to be angry about it. The ‘gun to the head’ is an overreaction of what usually happen when being rejected, it’s meant to imply the idea that she makes him feel absolutely worthless by rejecting him cruelly and blatantly rather than just saying ‘no’. I abhor women using white lies instead of the truth.

I don’t really care for these stupid, insipid arguments anymore. Would the rest of you please take the trash out when you’re done.

Four males with identical behavior, approach a woman in exactly the same way.
They get four different results depending on their attraction and comfort scores:

+ attraction + comfort— she wants to marry him
+ attraction – comfort— she wants to f*** him
– attraction +comfort— she wants to be his “friend”
– attraction – comfort— she thinks he’s “creepy”

I SAY:
I agree with this, except for the last item. The term “creepy” usually refers to some kind of unfortunate behavior. The real source of our disagreement is based on what traits generate attraction and whether all women can be expected to respond the same way.

I would also say that this scheme also applies to men’s attitudes towards women. Men fall in love with women who provide “attraction” and “comfort.” They want to sleep with women who provide attraction alone. They are platonic friends with women who provide “comfort” but to whom they are not attracted.

FEMINIST HATER says: “Honesty is the best policy. If you lie, the man will probably find out and then actually have a reason to be angry about it.”

I SAY: I agree. Been there, done that. I’ve done the whole, “I’m just not ready for a relationship while school is so stressful,” or “I’m not dating now” routine, or the routine of always being busy when they want to go out. But I assumed the guy would know that these were white lies designed to lessen the embarrassment he might feel. But a lot of guys apparently don’t know that.

FEMINIST HATER: “The ‘gun to the head’ is an overreaction of what usually happen when being rejected, it’s meant to imply the idea that she makes him feel absolutely worthless by rejecting him cruelly and blatantly rather than just saying ‘no’. I abhor women using white lies instead of the truth.”

I SAY: I understand that. But again, the only conclusion from a bald “no, I don’t want to go out with you,” is kind of harsh. Translation: “I’m just not that into you.” So, it’s a really hard thing to do. Very few people enjoy inflicting pain, so of course, you try to say something to minimize it, but many guys hear that minimizing as, “There’s hope! I should keep trying!”

As noted before, I have initiated and I have been rejected at times, so while it is indeed easier for women to find dates, I have experienced the embarrassment involved.

If you’re not familiar with the term, a “nuclear rejection” is a rude, shaming, spiteful, and especially a publicly humiliating rejection that is offered in response to a polite but unwanted romantic approach. Plenty of men here have experienced that, myself included.

Thanks. I did not even mean for it to be a call to action. Just a rant.

It gets tiring having to remind myself of the same old things, over and over again. And it gets tiring having to disabuse repeated posters like DH, who should know better, of their silly, wrongheaded notions of attraction. I get tired of this f**ked up SMP and watching it chew up good men. I’m scared to death of the legacy we’re leaving our kids.

Don’t be beta. Gotta bring the dominance. Gotta be attractive. Gotta make sure wifey doesn’t lose the attraction or it’s “I love you but I’m not in love with you.” Gotta spend our money on gym memberships and carve out the time to work out so wifey doesn’t lose the attraction. Used to be that bringing home the bacon so your wifey could fry it up in the pan was good enough. Not anymore, not when the law, the society, the culture, and even the church says “vagina tingles uber alles”.

I am tired of reading about Christian men married to ostensibly Christian women who cheat on their husbands. These are supposed to be CHRISTIAN WOMEN, for shit’s sake. “Do not commit adultery” is one of the Top Ten, so to speak. It’s the one even the high-holiday “Christians” know.

I’m tired of watching good men suffer, for no reason other than they’re a few pounds overweight or they work their asses off trying to provide for their ungrateful bitch wives.

I am tired of good men suffering because their wives aren’t haaaaappy.

I’m sick to fucking death of men being unable even to get Sally Sunday School Teacher or Susie from accounting to have a drink with them after work, because those men don’t have Brad Pitt’s abs or Warren Buffett’s money or George Clooney’s charm. I am damn tired of it.

I’m tired of hearing stories about good men having their wages garnished at rates of up to 65% to 75% for alimony and child support, leaving them next to nothing to live on. These are middle aged men, living in shithole studio apartments or having to live with their parents. These are men who have been transformed into wage slaves, who must continue to pay while receiving nothing in return. These men have nothing to offer a possible second wife.

I have a friend who got divorced from a 17-year marriage about a month ago. My wife and I have known them for about 10 years. They struggled financially. He was quite beta. She put on quite the front for a long time, talking about how she loved her “handsome” hubby and how awesome he was. Come to find out it was all a lie — she had been miserably unhaaaaaappy in her marriage; she was a former exotic dancer and carousel rider who wanted to get married; she bitched and complained about his lack of work ambition.

They have two sons both in high school. She insisted on custody so she’d have enough child support money to move out and make ends meet on her own; she wouldn’t have enough to make rent on her own meager income.

Did you get that? My friend’s ex wife, the mother of his sons, insisted on custody so she would have the money.

Not because she wanted to have them. Not because she was the best person to raise them. Not because she loves her boys.

It was because she wanted to get out, get away from her husband, and get out of her marriage.

She used her sons. Used them as pawns. Used them as monetary bargaining chips. She used the law to put a price on her own flesh and blood.

All this so she can start cougaring it up. All so she can get 25 year old hardbody douchebags to pump and dump her. All so she can start looking for her secret millionaire/hunky handyman.

My friend is a good man. He is an honest, kind, God fearing man. And his life has been ruined–financially, emotionally, spiritually, and socially. He’s 42 years old. He’s kind of schlubby, but he is a good man.

Worse, his sons’ lives have been ruined. I’ve seen them. They are losing faith. They are losing hope. They live with a mother whom they don’t respect. They live in a shitty two-bedroom apartment about a mile or two away from me. They live hand to mouth, every day a financial mystery. The older one needs glasses and some kind of surgery; the younger one has a chronic medical condition that will require lifelong care. They have no medical insurance. They don’t even have a fucking yard to play in or decent food to eat. They are losing any hope that life has anything good for them. They are losing faith that the future holds anything good in store for them. They are losing faith that God will protect them, will watch over them, even that He hears them.

And why should they have that faith? Their own mother lied through her teeth to them that she would stay with their father. Their own mother lied to them and told them that everything was fine. Their own mother has essentially rejected their father. Why should they believe the Ten Commandments when they don’t even see their own parents even making an effort to live them out?

I have two first cousins. They are the only first cousins I have. They are both about my age, in their early 40s. When they were in grade school, about 30 years ago, their parents divorced which of course separated many family loyalties. So the cousins did not come to many family functions. As a result of all this glorious f**kedupness, I don’t know my first cousins. They are distant acquaintances to me. I see them every 2 or 3 years or so, when someone dies or gets married or graduates from something. I don’t even know them. they are my flesh and blood, my family. And I don’t even know who they are. Their parents (my uncle and aunt) each have two failed marriages under their belts. And their children each also have been married and divorced twice.

This is tearing our society apart. It is ruining lives, destroying families, and ripping the fabric of our society to shreds. Why is anyone surprised that men GTOW? Why is anyone surprised that some divorced men never remarry? Why is anyone surprised that children of divorce grow up to divorce themselves? Why is anyone surprised by or outraged by anything Dalrock writes about here?

“The only part I would quibble with is whether women “don’t realize” that other things besides “kindness, consideration, and respect,” go into attraction. I think most women would say that, of course, there has to be attraction too. Women are saying they want “kindness, consideration, and respect,” but it doesn’t follow from that that “kindness, consideration, and respect” are enough by themselves.”

What???

I doubt if women truly realize what attracts them, but say for sake of argument that women do. Women are still on the hook to communicate clearly what attracts them to men and telling men “I am attracted to nice guys means” just that. Insert “kind”, “considerate” or whatever. It does not communicate the sentiment “I want the guys I’m attracted to to be “nice”.” The problem i that women voice that they are attracted to “X”, but are not. And time and time again refuse to own up to such lip service.

With their current entitled mindset women need to do way more than mouth a “no”. They should also be expected to articulate a “why”. As we see more and more infantile, dishonest, irrational dating choices from women the best obstacle is social pressure to self examine.
No doesn’t me no. No means explain.

koevet, “HRP4Y, What is there not to agree with? I know we are not owed dates. I have agreed with this repeatedly. You even quote me saying “I would consider it less a feeling of entitlement”. Yes, she must accept the consequences for her own actions. This is standard adult world stuff. The consequences of turning down a good guy are just that, not having that good guy. ”

Just because a woman turns YOU down is not a statement about all good guys. We have to stop extrapolating our personal rejections to a larger, “women hate good guys and love bad boys because 1 or 10 women turned me down, personally”. There are several reasons why a woman might turn you down outside of the “she wants to fuck alphas” stereotype. Maybe she didn’t find you all that physically attractive? Maybe you had bad breath. Maybe at the time she’s not looking. Maybe her mom just died. Could be a million things.

Deti, the stories you have in the second post are the reason that the first is the call to arms. You didn’t even need to tell them. How many men on here could read what you wrote and not immediately fill in the details with examples from their own lives?

HRP4Y, where did I say it was because so and so shot me down? I don’t remember saying it was about me at any point, though I was horrifyingly drunk last night so if I wrote something about my own personal experiences then please feel free to correct me. I was speaking in general terms. You have not confuted my argument, only made it about me. A fine attempt at shaming, though.

That’s why they should just stick to ‘no thanks’. No excuse needs to be given. A standard ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is all the man really requires. Rejection hurts, sure. But, being on the receiving end of a cruel and lasting rejection, where the women tries to use white lies to ‘soften the blow’, as it were, just leads to far more pain and suffering than is really necessary. That is cruel.

Then you get the type of rejection that VR talks about, where the asking out of a woman is such an insult to her that she has to get back at the man who asked her out and wholly humiliate him by tearing him to shreds. Tearing both his looks and his worth into shreds. That is the ‘nuclear rejection’ that DH says is just standard operating procedure for asking someone out.

Women have asked me out and because I was not attracted to them I had to turn them down. Sometimes it was due to their lack of femininity or lack of beauty; and sometimes because of their age or acts of indiscretion in the past. When telling them ‘no’ I made no excuses and simply left it at that. I did not tell them why, unless they asked, and then it was a simply, “I’m not attracted to you”. They may have felt crap afterwards, I have felt that way too, numerous times, but that pain fades quickly. The pain felt after having suffered a ‘nuclear rejection’ can last a lifetime.

EVILALPHA SAYS: “With their current entitled mindset women need to do way more than mouth a “no”. They should also be expected to articulate a “why”. As we see more and more infantile, dishonest, irrational dating choices from women the best obstacle is social pressure to self examine. No doesn’t me no. No means explain.”

But explanations can be humiliating. Because what can it possibly be other than that she doesn’t find the man attractive. And who wants to hear that he is unattractive to a woman? That kind of thing gets into “nuclear rejection” territory, no? Some men I’ve come across practically demand a nuclear rejection. I’m not saying there no woman is ever mean or cruel, but men do paint women into a corner sometimes and make it very hard to get rid of them without being mean.

And why exactly do women owe anyone an explanation as to their dating choices, good or bad? And isn’t “I’m just not that into him,” sufficient to justify not marrying or sleeping with someone? Why would you even want to marry or sleep with someone who is ‘just not that into you?”

DETI SAYS: “Don’t be beta. Gotta bring the dominance. Gotta be attractive. Gotta make sure wifey doesn’t lose the attraction or it’s “I love you but I’m not in love with you.” Gotta spend our money on gym memberships and carve out the time to work out so wifey doesn’t lose the attraction. Used to be that bringing home the bacon so your wifey could fry it up in the pan was good enough. Not anymore, not when the law, the society, the culture, and even the church says “vagina tingles uber alles”.”

I SAY: Come on now! You do know that it is primarily women who are under pressure to “stay hot” to keep their husbands attracted to them — Diet, exercise, plastic surgery even, moisturizers, botox, make-up, slimming and fashionable clothing, manicures, etc. etc.

I agree with you that people should keep their promises so that you can count on your spouse not leaving at the first sign of flab, BUT let’s not pretend this is some unique burden men face. Because women don’t depend on you anymore for your paycheck, you do have to put in the same work we always have to be attractive; can’t just rely on your pocketbook alone.

But, of course, you’re saying that the pressure on men is even greater because women can just take them to divorce court and take them for all their worth. But that kind of pressure is easily alleviated by supporting women’s economic independence, and also marrying women with good incomes. You’re not going to be paying alimony or child support to a woman who is making as much or more than you do. Hell, even if she’s making less but can support herself, a working woman is unlikely to get alimony, but she may get child support if she gets custody.

I would rather women simply say “no” than say they have a boyfriend but have sex with one of my friends the following week. Or say they don’t know me well enough, then make out with a stranger at a nightclub.

this is my last comment on this and then I’ll stop derailing this thread.

The only consolation I have for my newly divorced friend is that his ex wife will not find dating the cornucopia smorgasbord that it was for her when she was a single woman in her early 20s, having all sorts of men vie for her attention. Nor will she get the attention and money she used to get, working at a strip club and having drunk, fat omegas stuffing dollar bills into her G-string.

Dating for her will be something of a crapshoot. Oh, she’s a very nice looking woman. She will have no trouble getting some male attention. She’s an age-adjusted 7. But the tables have turned. There won’t be many rich doctors or lawyers looking to wife up a 42 year old divorced mother of two teenage sons.

She’ll get a smattering of young men who will pump and dump her. The hardbody dudes get the sex; she will get the ego boost. Players in their 30s and 40s, around her age, will also show her a good time and sex her as long as she doesn’t hassle them and as long as she doesn’t mind being part of a rotating harem. They’ll play her like a violin, standard operating procedure: drinks and cheap dates only until she puts out; then she’s in the harem until she becomes too much trouble or starts shit testing. Exclusive dating? Fuggedaboutit. LTR? You’re not serious. None of these men will consider her for anything other than casual dating. She’ll have to put out early and often to get any kind of investment at all from these kinds of men. If she doesn’t, she goes in the NEXT pile to…..

The older men, the divorcees, and the lonelyhearts. These are the men around ten years older than she, age range 48 to 60. Some will have some money; most will be middle to working class. They offer respectability, LTR and remarriage; but they’ll be short on tingles. They will wine her and dine her, spend money on her, and lavish her with attention. She will put out for a few of them, if they have enough money. She’ll make them wait for sex until they prove their provider/relationship bona fides. Some of these men will be wannabe players who will run some crappy Game on her and it will work sometimes. Some others will be divorced men, scarred up from at least one failed marriage. She’ll meet some damaged goods guys through online dating. Others will be fat sugar daddy retirees who will take her to island vacations and throw their money around.

In the end, the young douchebags will sex her but will never, never marry her. The older men will marry her but she won’t “feel it”. And she will be alone. As she should be.

DH: And why exactly do women owe anyone an explanation as to their dating choices, good or bad?

DH, I agree. You do not owe anyone any explanations. If his approach is polite, the only thing you owe is a polite, “No thanks.” Your reasons are your business.

If he tries again, you may need to spell it out: “Sorry, but I just don’t want to date you. Please don’t make this awkward by asking again.” Still, your reasons are your business. But always repay politeness with politeness.

If, on the other hand, you’ve seriously led him on, and then dumped him out of the blue, perhaps you do owe him an explanation. Especially if he was ring shopping while you were planning the breakup. But if you never date him at all, no explanation is owed.

you’re saying that the pressure on men is even greater because women can just take them to divorce court and take them for all their worth. But that kind of pressure is easily alleviated by supporting women’s economic independence, and also marrying women with good incomes

Except for one thing. The more money a woman makes, the more hypergamous she becomes. Women always look UP the socioeconomic ladder for mates. So a woman with an income similar to a man’s, will very, very rarely date him… she wants another decimal place.

goodfoot: I would rather women simply say “no” than say they have a boyfriend but have sex with one of my friends the following week. Or say they don’t know me well enough, then make out with a stranger at a nightclub.

Or… the infamous: “I’m not ready for a relationship right now.” Or, “God doesn’t want me to have a boyfriend at this time.” Or, “I don’t believe in dating”.

Most guys would be happy with civility and truthfulness. Reality? Younger the guy, the less politeness or truth he gets. I have experienced this. Vindictive church girls spreading rumours is not acceptable behaviour. Neither is church leadership excused when bad behaviour by girls is excused, overlooked and ignored.

Because girls naturally mature on their own, of course.

Men get accountability groups. Women get gossip get togethers.

Nice summary Deti. Justice is delayed, not denied. I know a number of women who practised serial rejection on good men, and were utter bitches in their youth. In their forties now, no amount of exercise, makeup or clothing will get them the life their own choices pushed away.

Do i gloat over this? No. Seeing them experience the outcomes of their choices is not pleasant. Will anyone learn from their experience? Probably not. Somewhere, a man is at fault. . .

“With their current entitled mindset women need to do way more than mouth a “no”. They should also be expected to articulate a “why”. As we see more and more infantile, dishonest, irrational dating choices from women the best obstacle is social pressure to self examine.
No doesn’t me no. No means explain.”

My ego would rather not hear a woman articulate the ways she finds me unattractive, thank you very much.

“With their current entitled mindset women need to do way more than mouth a “no”. They should also be expected to articulate a “why”. As we see more and more infantile, dishonest, irrational dating choices from women the best obstacle is social pressure to self examine.
No doesn’t me no. No means explain.”

Sigh. Pick a link, any link. But get up on your feet, man, do yourself a favor.

“But explanations can be humiliating. Because what can it possibly be other than that she doesn’t find the man attractive. And who wants to hear that he is unattractive to a woman? That kind of thing gets into “nuclear rejection” territory, no? Some men I’ve come across practically demand a nuclear rejection. I’m not saying there no woman is ever mean or cruel, but men do paint women into a corner sometimes and make it very hard to get rid of them without being mean.
And why exactly do women owe anyone an explanation as to their dating choices, good or bad? And isn’t “I’m just not that into him,” sufficient to justify not marrying or sleeping with someone? Why would you even want to marry or sleep with someone who is ‘just not that into you?””

Actually female explanations are more likely to be illuminating than humiliating which is why you protest sooo much. But see the benefit of moving past the “if” of unattraction to the “why” of unattraction is that when women actually voice their absurd reasons it is laughter that follows, not pain. I was once “rejected” by a woman for dressing “gay” at which point her girlfriend sitting next to her and the female bartender looked at her, chuckled and said “Him. Gay. No way”

So why is “I’m just not that into him” not enough?
1. Because women don’t know what attracts them.
2. Women tell men lies about what attracts them.
3. Women are moody.
4. Because men (the initiators) deserve reasonable, thoughtful consideration beyond “Because I said so”. Save that sentiment for your bastard kids.

But, of course, you’re saying that the pressure on men is even greater because women can just take them to divorce court and take them for all their worth. But that kind of pressure is easily alleviated by supporting women’s economic independence, and also marrying women with good incomes. You’re not going to be paying alimony or child support to a woman who is making as much or more than you do. Hell, even if she’s making less but can support herself, a working woman is unlikely to get alimony, but she may get child support if she gets custody.

This lie, so obvious, bears out what I’ve been suspecting about you all along: everything you say is completely made up. Thanks for coming out.

Tell me about it. I spend more time making fake posts on feminist blogs (posing as a rad fem to make them look like the crazies they are) than I do posting real things I sometimes forget to turn the PC off!

Holy crap! Do you really think that women are obligated to date men they don’t like because they can’t come up with a reason satisfactory to you or their friends not to do so? Why isn’t “I just don’t wanna,” good enough in and of itself? Do you want to date someone who is with you just because she can’t think of a reason not to be?

On topic, I don’t think women should date men they aren’t genuinely interested in, DH. I do however, think women need to be more realistic about the kinds of men who will be genuinely interested in them as something more than an easy lay.

“Evilalpha,
Holy crap! Do you really think that women are obligated to date men they don’t like because they can’t come up with a reason satisfactory to you or their friends not to do so? Why isn’t “I just don’t wanna,” good enough in and of itself? Do you want to date someone who is with you just because she can’t think of a reason not to be?”

I see your hamster had it’s morning coffee.

Women absolutely have the right not to date men (no strawman needed ok) even for stupid pathetic reasons. But you see women’s dating decisions aren’t above reproach/judgement. Now I get the feminist power politics behind “because I said so” but let’s stop the coy bull. eh? So for the 2nd time “I just don’t wanna” is not good enough for the dating realities already list above and re-listed here.

1. Because women don’t know what attracts them.
2. Women tell men lies about what attracts them.
3. Women are moody.
4. Because men (the initiators) deserve reasonable, thoughtful consideration beyond “Because I said so”. Save that sentiment for your bastard kids.

Evilalpha,
Why do men (or women like me who do initiate) deserve “reasonable, thoughtful consideration?” Men and women who initiate deserve kindness and courtesy (assuming their approach was kind and courteous) but they don’t deserve “reasonable, thoughtful consideration.”

Also you make it sound like a bratty temper tantrum (“Because I said so!”) when women make basic decisions about their most intimate personal lives. That’s not “power politics” but basic freedom.

Also giving all comers “reasonable and thoughtful” consideration is the path towards really pissing guys off. Guys usually interpret that as “leading them on.”

As I mentioned above, I did this quite a bit due to really crappy advice from my father. He said, “Give everyone a shot. The guy who appears unattractive off the bat might have a lot to offer. At least get to know him.” But very rarely does the guy who seems unattractive off the bat reveal hidden depths that compensate for that initial lack of attraction. And now you’ve gotten to know him, and now his hopes are up, and now he really wants to explanation if you back out, and now you’re going to hurt his feelings even more when you try to extricate yourself from the relationship. There’s no kind way to say, “You’re a nice guy but I’m repulsed by to pale skin combined with really thick black arm hair,” or whatever it is.

Why do you guys continue to respond to Doomed Harlot? Most of this comment section is guys responding to DM. Do you guys think you will post something so profound that DM will change her beliefs? Do you guys think you will be the one to change her- like a comment section white knight? DM is a feminist now and will be a feminist forever. None of you guys will change her mind. She has taken over this comment thread ONLY because you guys continue to respond to her. Stop responding to her. It’s that simple.

“Also, don’t these two things conflict? 1. Because women don’t know what attracts them. 2. Women tell men lies about what attracts them.”

Nah. Items 1 & 2 aren’t in conflict. Stop deflecting so much.
e.g. A 30 something single woman is attracted to wealth, believes she is attracted to “class”, but says she wants a nice guy on her profile. She’s both deluded and a liar.

What next? Are you gonna criticize my spelling. I mean it’s obvious that you are just ducking the truth about women’s horrible dating habits.

Doomed whore is perhaps this blogs greatest example of the kind of woman a man is expected to marry in this day and age, and a true glimpse behind the curtain about what a woman REALLY thinks.

1.) She waited until she was too old to try and conceive.
2.) She nagged her husband into health problems.
3.) Now she has sex outside her marriage with her husbands ‘permission’ because hes ‘impotent’

This all comes under the shadow of the last time she was here when she puffed herself up about the great marriage and life she had before. Its a hilarious turn of events and serves as a great example of what men in North America are in for when they are expected to “Man up!”

None of us are trying to change anyone’s mind, just troll and see how crazy her responses can get, so men like you will say ‘bitch be crazy’ and apply that to his personal life.

“I never dwelled on it when a woman turned me down. I just moved on to the next. Plenty of phish in the sea. Its a numbers game more than anything else”

There’s a very big difference between dwelling and learning. The latter would have saved you from the numbers game myth. One becomes a great hitter through improving techniques not just swinging at more pitches.

Yaboy, I’m pretty sure Dalrock doesn’t think my personal situation is of any relevance, but if you are going to bring it up, please don’t get it wrong. My husband was both impotent and infertile long before I met him. He has health problems, including impotence and infertility, arising from an accident he had as a teenager.

My ego would rather not hear a woman articulate the ways she finds me unattractive, thank you very much.

From this comment I would assume you are a man. However, based on another comment you left at CMDN you appear to be a woman:

Oh Flippityflippendales! Of course we women like to oogle hot guys. We are blatant objectifiers. Why the excuses? Matthew McConaughey is flippin blasted hot as a Kentucky coalmine and yeah I’m going to see the movie if he’s in the buff. Duh. This is a no brainer. Bring on the brawn!

Dalrock, HARP4Y does indeed appear to be playing both sexes depending on the venue. Although this comment is meant to sound as if it were written by a woman, I suspect he is in fact a man. It would be odd for a woman to use the turn of phrase s/he uses in this comment to describe female sexual arousal:

“Pulling a girl a week (and he, by my calculation, was only pulling a girl every two months) is not that difficult (a brief look through one of my earlier diaries shows that when I was the same age as Janka, that is exactly what I was doing – a girl a week I mean) and I am not in any sense an Alpha – at least I don’t think so.”
– Opus

@Opus: while I think you are correct about Paul Janka and what could be expected from him given his looks, I do think you are definitely an Alpha if you were doing that (whether that came from your great looks, great game, great luck, great status or some combination of the four). Whatever the case was – congratulations! You have my admiration.

However, to say that is “not in any sense an Alpha” would be like that guy in American Beauty who quits his high-roller job to enjoy life and still comes back to enjoy the house with dozens of rooms and antique furniture. He might not technically be rich anymore, but in every observable aspect, he is still above three quarters of general population.

Your ‘husband’ isn’t going to post to defend himself, not that I expect he would. But you’ve lied about enough things that the safe assumption is that everything you say about him being impotent is a lie. Any way you ‘slice it’ as you say, you are simply an adulterer with a wimp for a husband.

You’ve been revealed as a lair over and over again. I know that is your line of work and thus your default method of discussion is circular logic and word play. But it is quite ineffective when used on someone who has had exposure to it lifelong. Nobody can believe a word you say, and you have revealed yourself to be an amateurish pettifogger with your weak attempts to twist words.

If you even have a husband, which I at times doubt, I have no faith in anything you say relating to him as being anything but your own, made up attempts to feel ‘Important On The Internet’.

Yaboy,
Hey, it doesn’t make a difference to me if you think I’m a liar. But you look foolish making claims that you can’t back up, such as your claim that I’ve been “revealed to be a liar.” Your subjective belief in something does not make it objectively true.

You’re not getting it are you, I don’t care what you are writing. I’m not even reading it. None of it can be believed anyway. If your cuck really exists I pity him for meeting you, perhaps biology did what his brain could not by refusing to reproduce with you. But your lies are pervasive, and you are screaming into the void by continuing to write your lies and nonsense. I know how important it is to a woman to feel at all times the centre of attention, otherwise facebook would not be as popular.

Surely there are other forums where you haven’t waxed about your personal life over and over again, each time getting more and more absurd and contradictory, that would provide the attention you crave so?

I’m glad you liked that Alexander. That was kind of my point. Y’all natter on about women being so subjective (and, actually, I can’t tell if yaboy is a man or a woman), but I find it ironic that just becaus yaboy doesn’t believe me, he or she thinks that that is somehow proof that I am lying.

As I said I haven’t read the full exchange since I checked out yesterday afternoon, so if any of this is a repeat I apologize. But in case it hasn’t already progressed, I wanted to flesh out the full internet cliche so it doesn’t continue to come out in drips and drops like a good soap opera should. When we last saw you (the season finale), you were a 40 something feminist lawyer with an egalitarian faithful marriage, trying to conceive with your husband before your window of fertility closed for good. Now we learn that your husband is impotent and infertile, and you are having sex with other men. This of course perfects the cuckold fetish and sets the stage for a round of paternity drama (I hear Maury is always looking for talent, by the way).

Crazy is losing track of your own online gimmick posting. Your status posturing as being ‘sane’ is a failure, just your life.

Sigh. I don’t want to cause another thread derailment, but I do think it’s appropriate for me to defend myself against unfounded charges of dishonesty. I want to make it clear that while I did share personal details in the other thread, I backed off when Dalrock indicated he thought was unproductive, and I’m not the one who has raised my personal details again. I am merely responding to an accusation.

I suppose you assume that it is contraditory that I said my husband and I were trying to conceive when in fact he is infertile. While I don’t expect Dalrock to keep track of all the details of my story, I did in fact mention my husband’s infertility previously when I was commenting here several months ago. Our attempts to conceive involved artificial insemination with donor sperm. We will likely be trying again and/or exploring the adoption option.

What makes you sound unhinged, Yaboy, is that you leap to conclusions without simply asking me, all the while expressing rabid personal hostility towards for no reason I can ascertain. WHere I come from, you don’t accuse someone of lying without asking that person first if there is any explanation for any presumed inconsistencies (as Van Rooinek did).

Oh, and you have no idea what I feel or don’t feel. Trust me, talking to a bunch of strangers on the internet, while interesting and informative, does not make me feel “big and important.”

That’s fine, Yaboy. I have no objection to you reaching your own conclusions. I do recognize that (a) my personal life has become a bit unusual, (b) there is no way to verify or prove my story, even should I wish to, without giving up my anonymity, and (c) people do make things up on the internet.

“Women are saying they want “kindness, consideration, and respect,” but it doesn’t follow from that that “kindness, consideration, and respect” are enough by themselves.”

I doubt kindness consideration and respect by themselves would be enough for anyone. And why should they be? There are millions of kind, considerate and respectful people in the world, maybe billions. Not all of them are physically attractive, healthy and fit which is what both sexes want in a mate, even those of us who are not physically healthy, attractive and fit ourselves.

Like I said, circular arguments and word play. You’ll go around in circles forever with your gimmick. Noone should believe you. You are an internet cliche just as Dalrock said, and more than likely a fake one.

Weird how some people are really obsessed over the life decisions of invisible strangers on a forum. If her husband doesn’t care she’s shameless and openly talking about being promiscuous, why do you? I think this would be the last place she’s looking validation for.

Oh and I’m not a white knight, being too open about sexuality is a turn off for me…but does any of this really matter at all? This place would be a lot more interesting to read if it got past the “women are devious creatures, and completely never satisfied” echoes. I laugh when someone tells me they’re in an open relationship, who gives a shit.

No. The thing is, it’s completely related since you are debating and deconstructing her personal life (that’s the context). Now you’re claiming she’s a fake, because you’ve confronted her directly on her faults already and it doesn’t make a difference

You’ve gone from:
– Saying i am criticizing her ‘life decisions’ to
– Saying I am criticizing women as devious creatures, and completely never satisfied to
– Saying I am attacking her faults.
You’ve invented 3 things argue against in under an hour without actually quoting anything. Get your fucking thoughts straight before you vomit out another thing to assign to me hahahaha. You probably aren’t a white knight, just stupid.

If you can’t develop a coherent and consistent thought to actually discuss then you are, by definition, stupid. Noone can be expected to have a discussion with someone who has no coherent argument to make, only a buffet plate of various ideas that popped into their head.
Sorry, nothing left to discuss here. Try again in a couple weeks or something I guess ?lol

At least find a chick you know in real life to stalk. But keep proclaiming your superiority all you want and try to be indifferent to my words, but you know deep down you’re compensating by trying to be witty, intellectually superior, and condescending on other peoples expense. And actually, that stinks of inferiority complex.

I feel sorry for the guys who comment on this blog. Gods way actually works great. If the husband loves his wife like Christ loved the church and the wife submits to her husband things are pretty great, with little effort. It causes you to e attracted to your husband, without him having to game you! Marriage game seems like too much pressure if that’s not your natural personality. Who wants to feel like they’re earning their wife’s sex and respect instead of her just giving it out of love? I think my husband might be a beta by the definition here, but it doesn’t have a negative effect on our relationship. I have sex with him whenever he wants, I initiate, I’m attractive, I defer to him (he makes it easy, though, because he’s so generous), we almost never fight. I like across the street from a super good looking, rock hard alpha who is my age (husband 10 years older) and I don’t even care. He comes over and helps us move stuff sometimes and has been over for dinner. I have no interest in him because I’m into my hubby! Oh, and my husband has said he wouldn’t leave me if I had an affair. I’m not even sort of tempted. I love the Lord and I love my husband. Just pursue Jesus and pray for your future wife. He’s a good God. You can trust him.